Self-Righteous Indignation: the Daily Mail, Mrs Thatcher and Terrorism

The Daily Mail is incandescent with (self) righteous indignation. "Our Man in Washington Helped With Gaddafi's Son's "Dodgy" PhD", says the banner headline on today's edition. Sir Nigel Sheinwald, our ambassador in the USA and "a key confidant of Tony Blair", is alleged to have given tutorial support to Saif Gaddafi when The Mad Colonel's son was a postgraduate student at the LSE. It seems to have helped, because Gaddafi Junior graduated with a PhD in Philosophy in 2008. This is, claims theMail's leader writer, Michael Seamark, "...further evidence of the close links between the Blair government and the Libyan tyrant's murderous regime".
Well, I'm no fan of the Colonel, and I'm aware of the fact that a number of UK universities have received funds from Gaddafi in the past, but the high moral tone of this article is too much to take.
It may be that Blair and his cronies tried cosying up to the Libyan dictator, but the ex-PM, Mrs Thatcher, much revered by the Mail, kept some unsavoury company as well.
Back in the 1980s, during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and the USA and Britain were covertly arming the Afghan resistance - the Mujahadeen - one of the Mujahadeen commanders receiving assistance was a man called Hadji Abdul Haq. He wasn't the only one , of course, but what made Haq special was his readiness to use terrorism. In September, 1984, Haq's men set off a bomb at Kabul Airport, which killed 28 innocent people. Most of the victims were students, waiting for a flight to the Soviet Union. In March 1986, Haq was welcomed to Britain by Mrs Thatcher and later went on to visit President Reagan.Facing his critics in London, Haq said that the bomb outrage was "to warn people not to send their children to the Soviet Union". A Downing Street official said that the PM had "...a degree of sympathy with the Afghan people".
Exactly how much sympathy Mrs Thatcher had for the relatives of the 28 dead at Kabul Airport is not recorded.
I often wonder what the reaction of our press would have been if 9/11 or 7/7 had happened in the USSR in the 1980s. I very much doubt that there would have been any sympathy for the victims in papers like the Mail. As far as I'm concerned, helping with a dodgy PhD is a good deal less reprehensible than wining and dining a terrorist and a murderer. Still, as Mrs T and the Mail would no doubt say: Haq was our terrorist and our murderer.

Eyewitness: the London Anti-Cuts March

After such a dramatic-sounding title, and the images that are all over today's newspapers and TV reports, I have to say that I was on the anti-cuts demo yesterday, and enjoyed a noisy, but good natured, slow walk through central London. With friends, I arrived at the Embankment tube station at exactly 11.00am, and we reached Hyde Park at about 4.00pm. The only anxiety of the day for us came when my friend's wife became separated from us for a short while, only to rejoin us happily, having been following a very lively steel band. I hadn't been on a demo for years, and it was exhilarating to walk down Whitehall in the company of thousands (no-one knows exactly how many). It took some time to pass through Trafalgar Square, but we were entertained by one marcher who climbed one of the statues and put a Unison jacket on the rider of  a horse.
In Piccadilly, we saw the signs of the violence that the media is focussing upon today. Bad as it was, and as frightening as it must have been at the time of the violence, many marchers walked by without seeming to notice. Apart from the damage to the Ritz, which was considerable, the rest seemed to amount to no mare than a few splashes of paint on walls. The action was over long before we got there. We arrived at Hyde Park at about 4pm, only to find that all the speakers had spoken and gone home. This was a flat end to what had been a lively day. It was quite a disappointment - and a missed opportunity for the Labour Party. Had Labour politicians appeared at staggered intervals, they would have got their message across far better.
As for the Anarchists and the subsequent evening violence, I can only say that I saw it coming. Without their acts of "propaganda by deed" (PBD), no-one would notice them, and it was obvious that they were not going to miss this opportunity. Near Temple Underground Station, I saw some of them wearing facemasks and carrying Anarcho-Syndicalist flags (the Anarchist flag is black) as we waited to join the main march, and wondered when they would kick off into action. I watched for them all along the route of the demo, but they never seemed to have enough troops to attack anywhere. I'm no psychic, but I guessed that they'd start something serious later - possibly after the main march dispersed. It looks as if I was right.

Sky News last night gave extensive coverage to the violence - more or less non-stop, all evening. Today's papers are showing lurid pictures of the action and no doubt have printed equally lurid articles. All I can say - and so will most of us who marched in London yesterday - is that we must not be tarred with the red and  black anarchist brush.

Private Eye, Posterity and the Verdict of History

When History pronounces its verdict upon Colonel Gaddafi, it will have a bewildering assortment of comments about him to choose from. One US President (Ronald Reagan, 1986) described him as "flaky" (ie, mad), while others have described him as "..a great guy believing in God" (Mohammed al-Fayed). Private Eye recently pointed out that in 2009, the UK sent an SAS team to train the Libyan armed forces. The Foreign Office (FO) said that this was: "...ongoing co-operation with Libya in the field of defence". Two years later, the government sent SAS teams to rescue UK citizens from what the FO calls: "...human rights violations by the Libyan authorities".
All this, of course, is as a result of trying to win the Colonel over to "our" side. This is the man whose regime supplied the IRA with arms, blew up an aircraft over Scotland and whose embassy staff shot dead a London policewoman in broad daylight. All pretty sickening, really.
Anyway, now it looks as if the UK and other countries are riding to the rescue of the Libyan rebels. While the concern of western governments for the fate of the Libyan people may be seen (not least by themselves) as commendable, one does wonder why no such military support has been given to the people of Zimbabwe. It is also remarkable that no support, moral or material, has been given to the protesting people of Bahrain, Syria or Yemen.
One TV pundit said today that Al-Qaeda has been strangely quiet throughout the recent events in the Middle East. I do not find it strange. I'm no expert, but I believe that Al-Qaeda will be watching the Libyan situation very carefully. They are probably waiting for the victory of one side or the other. When the outcome is decided, they will join in - on the side of the losers. If Gaddafi loses, he has said that he is prepared to ally with Al-Qaeda; if he wins, they will exploit the bitterness and anger of the anti-Gaddafi rebels against the West, who will be seen as having abandoned them.
Gaddafi has been panned for saying that Al-Qaeda is behind the Libyan Uprising, but there are some facts here that are worth considering. It is not generally known, but Libya was the first country to ask for an Interpol arrest warrant to arrest Osama Bin Laden - in 1998. Yet, according to Mark Curtis in "Secret Affairs", US and UK intelligence "buried the arrest warrant". It seems that this was because MI6 had been involved in a failed plot to assassinate Gaddafi with an Al-Qaeda affiliate group called the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. Five months after the arrest warrant was issued, Al-Qaeda bombed US embassies in Africa.
Posterity, like John Osborne and Oasis, will look back in anger - and much disgust.

Gaddafi, Hague, and an Unthinkable Conversation

The Libyan Civil War is starting to resemble the Spanish Civil War (1936-39) in a number of significant ways. Both started with a popular uprising which seemed to promise a people's victory. Both saw untrained militias going bravely into action against a better armed and militarily experienced enemy. We all know what happened to the Spanish Republicans and it looks as if the Libyan rebels are starting to face a similar fate. The superior weaponry and tactics of Gaddafi's forces are beginning to tell.
If The Mad Colonel ( as "Private Eye" calls him) is victorious in this conflict, he will doubtless come to resemble Franco in the treatment of his defeated enemies. I don't often agree with John Major, the ex-PM, but Major is right when he says that Gaddafi will exact a savage revenge on every former enemy that he can capture alive.
If Gaddafi wins, there will also be a lot of fence-mending (ie. grovelling) by western politicians who have supported the uprising and condemned The Mad Colonel. A fly on the wall at a (hopefully unthinkable!) meeting between Gaddafi and William Hague might hear this:
Hague:" Er, well, Colonel, I must apologise for my somewhat intemperate comments during the recent difficulties...."
Gaddafi: "Let bygones be bygones. The training you gave our military and the weapons you sold us were a great help".
Hague: "Speaking of which, Your Excellency, I do have a catalogue of our most up to date riot control vehicles..."
Gaddafi: "Thankyou. Business as usual, then?"
Even a fly on a wall would be sickened at this!

Mervyn King and the Internationale

Well, the top people are beginning to take a more realistic view of our present economic ills. Mervyn King, the Governor of the Bank of England, has said:
"The price of the financial crisis is being borne by people who did absolutely nothing to cause it."
The people referred to here, which is most of us, have known this for some time, but I suppose it's better late than never. He even went on to say that he was:
  "...surprised that the degree of public anger has not been greater than it has".
Mr King should not be surprised; the real cuts have not been implemented yet. Those of us who work in the public sector are bracing ourselves for the massive cuts that are promised at the start of the new fiscal year. This melancholy event is only a few weeks away.
The magazine "Money Week", which claims to have seen the credit crunch coming, says that 2011 will see a further fall in house prices and, following the rise in interest rates, a corresponding increase in repossessions and homelessness. It advises all its readers with money invested in property to buy gold instead. As very few of us are in that happy position, we could well see the explosion in public anger that Mervyn King speaks about. The tuition fees riots that we have already seen show that people still are capable of anger at the failings of the system. Worse could be on the way.
I have forgotten the words of "The Internationale"; I really must look for them...

The Revolution, Wordsworth and Gil Scott Heron

As the revolution in Libya and across the Middle East heats up by the hour, it's worth standing back and making some cool observations. Contrary to what Gil Scott Heron once sang, the revolution is being televised. It's also being reported round the clock by the internet, Twitter and mobile phone. I can honestly say that I have seen more images of Libya in the past few weeks than I have in the 40 years of Gaddafi being in power. Unlike previous revolutions( the American, French, Russian, Iranian, Velvet, etc), modern technology gives us a ring side seat to the making of history.
One wonders what Wordsworth would have made of it? He, of course, hailed the French Revolution with the famous line:
"Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive".
Wordsworth was in France at the time and felt so blissful that he made a French girl pregnant. In later life, he moved politically to the Right and bought shares in railways - but he never forgot his enthusiasm for 1789.
No-one outside Libya seems to feel much bliss for their revolution. All the non-Libyan faces we see on TV have an unmistakable look of concern and worry. There are the relatives of UK nationals trapped in Libya - and their anxiety is easily understandable. There are also the worried faces of our leading politicians - and I think that their worries are founded on more than humanitarian concerns.
They are, of course, worried about the possible outcome of events. There is the possibility of Islamists coming to power in Libya and elsewhere. Failing that, they must be aware that the Libyans fighting Gaddafi feel some bitterness towards the west. One Libyan said on TV:
"All the western countries care about is oil"
Many seem to feel that not enough has been done by western countries to help them by pressurising Gaddafi. They are also aware that Gaddafi's forces have much weaponry supplied by the west - especially from Britain. As they will no doubt see it, international condemnation of Gaddafi has only become vocal now that he is so obviously losing the fight to stay in power. A future Libyan government might not forget this.
Things were so much easier in Wordsworth's day - he didn't have up to date news from Paris. Things were so much simpler.
 An updated version of his famous line might be:
"Stressed is it in this dawn to be alive".

Red Faces - Left and Right

As the reports come in from Libya and Bahrain about how anti-government demonstrators are being shot down ( 200 reported dead in Libya), it occurs to me that a great number of people on the left and right should, if they have any shame, be highly embarrassed by events in the Middle East.
We never hear much nowadays about the Workers Revolutionary Party (WRP). In the 1970s, even people on the Far Left thought of them as a bunch of sectarian lunatics. They were most well known for the fact that Vanessa and Corin Redgrave were leading members. Less well known was the fact that they were vocal supporters of Colonel Gaddafi's Libya. I cannot be bothered to look at their website, but I hope that the WRP are withdrawing their support for the Bloody Colonel (are those pigs I see, flying in formation over London?).
It also needs to be noted that many MPs, of all parties, have had junkets to Libya and enjoyed the Colonel's hospitality. Western politicians must be hoping that if the Colonel is toppled, whatever government replaces him won't be too piqued at the fact that the West was becoming very friendly with their erstwhile leader.
Who knows? Maybe the Colonel and his followers will seek sanctuary here in the UK? As the Vietnamese say: "Only when the house is on fire do you see the faces of the rats".

The Egyptian Revolution and a Book Recommendation

The Chinese statesman, Chou En-Lai, is reported as having said:
"The significance of the French Revolution? -- too early to tell." 
If that's true of the French Revolution, which began in 1789, then it is certainly true of the Egyptian Revolution, which is happening as I type. I wish the Egyptian people well - I hope that they achieve the freedom for which so many have struggled so valiantly and in pursuit of which, many people have died. It has been truly inspiring to watch the crowds in Tahrir Square and listen to them articulate their hopes and dreams for the future of Egypt. It shows once again that "people power" can still overturn tyrants and lead to a new dawn for democracy.
There have,of course, been voices expressing disquiet about events in Egypt. Some commentators have pointed out that the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical Islamic body, are waiting in the wings for their opportuntiy to seize power. 
At this point, I would like to refer readers to a book called "Secret Affairs - Britain's Collusion With Radical Islam" by Mark Curtis. It is a fascinating book to read, and there is insufficient space here to give much detail, as it goes back to the beginning of the 20th century. Enough then, is to say that there is a startling and shocking fact on practically every page. The book paints a grim picture of how successive British governments have used Jihadist groups against political leaders and regimes they disliked at the time, despite the fact that these same Jihadist groups weren't too fond of Britain, either. Curtis claims that Britain's policies (and those of the USA) have helped to create the Jihadi terror threat we face today.
In the case of Egypt, he details how British policy makers secretly conspired with the Muslim Brotherhood to assassinate President Nasser in the 1950s. This continued until a more pro-Western regime came to power in Egypt in the early 1970s, when all connections were severed with the Brotherhood.
No wonder some people listen to the victorious chants of the crowds in Tahrir Square with apprehension; they dread hearing the sound of chickens coming home to roost.

Pensions, the Public Sector and Cuts-A-Go-Go

With retirement looming, I wrote to my local MP expressing my concern about the switch from the Retail Price Index (RPI) to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). This is a matter of concern for teachers like myself and all public sector workers, whether retired or not. I didn't expect much in the way of a result from writing my letter, but the reply ran into two sides of A4. My MP began by saying that the priority was to reduce the national deficit. Taxpayers' money goes to enhance public sector pensions and "This cannot continue to be justified..." (i.e. we can't afford it). She went on to say:
"...Lord Hutton highlighted the importance of the public sector to the health of our society...Public sector pensions serve as a reward for public service".
I am sure that many public sector workers, already retired, would say that their pension isn't much of a reward for years of dedicated service, but there are serious issues to be dealt with here.
Commenting on the review, Dr Mary Bousted, General Secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL), and no Bolshevik, said it was more "spin and myths" about public sector pensions.
She added: "It's total rubbish as usual. The average pension paid to a retired teacher is £9,000 a year, and £4,000 for a teaching assistant, which is far from gold-plated luxury as Lord Hutton agreed. All teachers contribute to their pensions and they are all in the same Teachers' Pension Scheme (TPS) - there are no "special" pension schemes for those in the top jobs, unlike the private sector, and the scheme's rules prevent anyone benefiting from large salary increases in their final few years."
Quite so, and I'm sure that colleagues in other branches of the public sector would agree that the image portrayed in the media of we over-subsidised public sector workers retiring on a taxpayer funded pot of gold is an outrageous myth. It also fails to take into account the fact that we also are taxpayers. Politicians of all parties should remember that we are voters too...

President Obama - Not What Was Said On the Tin?

Personally, I quite like President Obama. He seems a lot more genuine than most politicians, and being the first black president of the USA is surely a significant step forward for humanity? He has also, seemingly, tried very hard to improve the lot of the ordinary people of America. Mind you, I'm a bit vague on that score. I hope I never have to answer a quiz question on the subject.
It comes as a surprise to learn that, in some significant ways, he has shown himself to be not quite the shining liberal light I thought he'd be. For example, before he was elected President, gun owners in the US were buying up guns by the truckload. It seems that they thought Obama would impose severe firearms legislation - but that hasn't happened. Not only are guns still freely on sale, but President Obama has allowed firearms to be carried openly in America's National Parks. Mind you, Obama could argue that this is being liberal - for gun owners.
There is also the equally lethal issue of the War on Terror. President Obama gave the impression that the miltary adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan were abhorrent, and should be ended as soon as possible. Instead, he has sanctioned the biggest Military Spending budget ever anywhere. This has led John Pilger to comment:
"... many Americans actually believed Obama shared their opposition to Bush’s wars. In fact, he had repeatedly backed Bush’s warmongering and its congressional funding."
He has also continued America's unconditional support for Israel, and assured Cuban exiles that he will continue to impose the US trade embargo on Cuba.
This is not quite what was expected. Still, we in Britain should now be used to politicians who make promises before being elected to power, then fail to keep them when elected.
I wonder if Obama has ever met Nick Clegg?

Where are All the Protest Songs?

In an interview found in "The Guardian" on the 11th January, Bily Bragg laments the dearth of protest songs, given the credit crunch and the Afghan War. He says:
"When I was first plying my trade, people were willing to talk about these issues. Now they'd rather write about getting blasted than changing the world".
For the most part, I agree, although there may be an unwelcome explanation for this. One explanation is simple political apathy, caused by the fact that most people feel that they can have no real influence upon events, whatever they do. After all, runs this line of reasoning, 1000, 000 people demonstrated in London before the start of the Iraq War, and it didn't stop the invasion.
There is also the age issue. I have not encountered the argument that protest songs are "old hat", belong in the past and are for the older generation, but I am sure that this attitude does exist.
Lastly, there is the argument that people like the anodyne pop songs of today because they provide them with an escape from reality. There might be some point to this. In the 1930s, when war loomed, people loved some of the most trivial, escapist music imaginable. How else can we explain the popularity of Gracie Fields and George Formby?
Some would argue that protest songs are a waste of time, pointing to the anti-war songs of John Lennon as an example. Yoko Ono is on record as saying that Lennon really believed that songs such as "Give Peace a Chance" and "Happy Christmas (War is Over)" could change the world and end all war. Ah, say the cynics, such naivety!
As someone who has penned a few polemical verses himself, I find this last point of view the most inaccurate. Songs of themselves change nothing; people do that. But a song can inspire and help to unite people in a common purpose, raising our spirits and pointing us towards the ideals we strive for (I think Lennon would have agreed). We may yet see peace marchers singing "Give Peace a Chance" again, and student anti-cuts marchers lifting their spirits with a chorus of "We Shall Overcome". Deep in my heart, I do believe...

Mark Kennedy and a Question Gone Begging

I have never posted here twice in a week, and do not intend to make a habit of it. However, the case of the ex-undercover police officer, Mark Kennedy, has jolted me into action. Mr Kennedy, as we all know, is the former police agent who infiltrated environmental groups for seven years and then baulked at seeing six of his former associates wrongly convicted. Mr Kennedy is now on the run, and anyone wishing to read more about his story can do so in the Mail on Sunday. Much of what he says is frightening, not least his claims that he was beaten up by five police officers while working undercover and that he knew of 15 other operatives like himself, 4 of whom are still in place.
What concerns me is the fact that so much effort and expense has gone into mounting surveillance upon activists who are non-violent. At a time when we face terrorism, civil disorder and global organised crime, why are valuable resources being directed against people who intend harm to no-one, and want to make the world a better place?  I wonder if the police are engaged in surveillance of Amnesty International, Greenpeace and the Women's Institute?
It also begs the question: how much do police know in advance of actions planned by violent activists? As I have said before, Anarchist groups are not difficult to infiltrate for agents of the security forces. Such agents must have been in place before the recent violent student disorders in London, and yet they had no warning of the planned violence.
Or did they?