Observer/Guardian - once more with feeling for Blair

What's more contemptible: Tony Blair's latest views in the Observer/Guardian on support for the military coup in Egypt, or the Observer/Guardian giving him such uncritical space to air them?

A small sample of Blair's shameless chutzpah:

"So what should the west do? Egypt is the latest reminder that the region is in turmoil and won't leave us alone, however we may wish it would." (Emphasis added.)

He continues in lofty, Orientalist vein:

"Disengagement is not an option, because the status quo is not an option. Any decision not to act is itself a decision of vast consequence. At its crudest, we can't afford for Egypt to collapse. So we should engage with the new de facto power and help the new government make the changes necessary, especially on the economy, so they can deliver for the people. In that way, we can also help shape a path back to the ballot box that is designed by and for Egyptians."

Predictably, this leads on to his repeated call for Assad in Syria to be ousted by the same 'benevolent military' means. As ever, for Blair, military interventions, military 'solutions'.

Of course, Blair, Cameron, Obama and much of the media reporting them seem squeamishly averse to mentioning that the Western-backed Egyptian military is, in itself, fundamentally inimical to any kind of progressive or democratic development. The clue is in the coup.

Trained, courted and funded to the tune of $1.3 billion a year by Washington, any political alternative the generals might seek to effect will always have their own and their paymasters' self-interested imprint.

Which is why Obama's policy circle, like Blair, are urging America to stay dutifully close to them.

Egypt's military, or SCAF, own around forty per cent of the economy and are propped-up a US administration which can't call the overthrow of Morsi and suspension of the constitution a 'coup' as, defaulting to Congressional law, it would necessitate the withdrawal of such funding.

Whatever authentic revolutionary spirit still driving much of the Egyptian populace, such aspirations can never be served by this kind of external control and internal repression, as is so catastrophically evident now in the military's murderous purge of the Muslim Brotherhood and its supporters.

An autocrat, neoliberal and Washington placeman, Morsi and his conservative brethren were taking Egypt in no hopeful direction. People do certainly have the right to be on the streets exercising real democratic power. But the brutal means of removing Morsi, and any populist endorsement of such means, effectively sacrifices the independence of that fragile revolution.

With the coup and military killing now threatening a salafist backlash and possible civil war, isn't this instability, division and curtailment of any radical movement in Egypt (and beyond) precisely what the West and its military clients deeply wish for?   

As with his long support for Mubarak's repressions and then Morsi's collaborations, how fitting that Blair should now be openly endorsing the military's 'vanguard' efforts to find and install another Western-preferred entity.           

There should be little need to give Blair's own arguments here any more house room. A craven warmonger, the word 'masquerading' seems inadequate to convey the staggering effrontery of his claim to be any kind of democrat, diplomat or peacemaker.

Nor is it entirely obvious why Blair should command such attention. A widely reviled figure, this hasn't inhibited his considerable run of Guardian op-eds. 

The Guardian would likely argue that everyone is still entitled to their say.

It's a specious defence. Blair's column presence, one suspects, owes much more to the cloying respect 'our' leaders and ex-leaders enjoy no matter the nature or scale of their warring wickedness.   

What's particularly reprehensible is the Guardian's own servile reporting of Blair's piece, as in this notable interpretation:

"As the Middle East envoy representing the US, Russia, the EU and UN, Blair's intervention will be seen as provocative among the region's Muslim population, which views last week's dramatic events as an indefensible coup organised by the Egyptian military establishment. It also marks a striking development in the thinking of Blair, who now accepts that, in some of the world's more fraught regions, democracy will not necessarily deliver the kind of governments that can be defended in the face of overwhelming popular protest."

The assumptions here are as remarkable as Blair's own posturing.

Why assume that Blair ever really thought democracy mattered? Why is it readily accepted that Blair has suddenly undergone some kind of key 'conversion'? Why not, more obviously, assert that he has no principled interest in democratic approval or disapproval, whether in his contemptuous dismissal of mass anti-war sentiment, in the mercenary toppling of states the US/UK disfavours, in supporting virulently anti-democratic regimes like Saudi Arabia or in his unwavering defence of Israel's apartheid state?

How come such a political shyster, corporate carpetbagger and, most importantly, mass war criminal - as should all be plainly obvious, even to the Guardian  - is allowed so much media space?

These questions also apply to Channel 4 News and Krishnan Guru-Murthy who has, likewise, given Blair an open platform to deliver his fatuous creed.

It's the seeming 'anomaly' of the Guardian and other liberal media: 'crusading for truth and liberty', while dutifully protecting the worst abusers. 

The Guardian is presently engaged in a key effort to publish Edward Snowden's heroic disclosures over US/UK intelligence crimes.

Glenn Greenwald, the resilient figure running most of that output and defending Snowden to the hilt, has expressed his deep admiration for the Guardian's editors and journalists in staying with the story and defending Snowden.

Yet, while Greenwald may be right to praise the paper's efforts in this situation, he seems regrettably reticent in highlighting its wider service to power.

The 'crusading' side of the Guardian reflects, more prosaically, its market-positioning; namely, the commercial benefits to be gained from capturing that niche status as a 'radical-liberal' outlet. Of course, Guardian journalists may also be understandably proud of their eagerness to run such a vital, conscience-led story.

But that shouldn't detract us, or them, from criticising the Guardian's wider apologetics and subservience. There's no contradiction in praising the Guardian for defending Snowden while seeing its establishment-serving function.

The ever-forensic and conscientious Greenwald most likely sees all this, but is, perhaps, caught in a kind of 'loyalty trap'. Still, the point can't and shouldn't be avoided. 

Thus, consider how, despite its role in the Wikileaks revelations, Rusbridger and his editorial circle turned vociferously on Julian Assange, something which Wikileaks has kindly reminded Greenwald of.

"Guardian didn't walk away, in the end, but it flinched and redacted repeatedly and continues to withhold vital information."

While Guardian writers have subjected Assange to every form of character slur, just look at the protection the paper still affords Blair and others considered 'politically ours'.

Recall, in this same regard, Rusbridger exercising his 'editorial duty' in warning David Cameron about the questionable bona fides of Andy Coulson.

Not long ago, the Guardian performed an embarrassing cave-in after trying to hire miltant Zionist Joshua Treviño as a regular, big-name columnist. Again, the  purpose was to pitch itself as a leader in the US online market. Awkwardly for the Guardian, Treviño's past reactionary comments proved too much of a liability.

Yet, while Treviño was seen as beyond the pale, Blair, a rabid extremist by any similar humanitarian standard, is treated with due deference. 

We can, again, cite free speech, even for those we might find heinous - a right that Greenwald would admirably defend.

But what of the Guardian's own view of Blair, his high war crimes, his efforts to cover his tracks, his deceiving persona as a media pundit?

Shouldn't the Guardian, even if still allowing him such space, be simultaneously condemning his postures? Shouldn't it be actively campaigning for his indictment? Shouldn't it be running constant editorials urging others to keep that campaign going, helping to bring him and his co-conspirators to international justice?

That, of course, would be unthinkable, much more unthinkable than finding any criticism in the Guardian's last coy speculations about Blair's political return.  

When it comes to Blair, there's always room for inclusion, always scope for mitigation, always that loyal Guardian editorial urging: once more with feeling.

European hypocrisy over Snowden

While an enraged France and other European Union members denounce US/UK spying on EU offices, none appear inclined to support or protect Edward Snowden, the very man who provided that vital information.

As Channel 4 News presenter Jon Snow tweeted:

Who's afraid of the US? Europe! Outraged over spying..cowardice reigns when it comes to protecting the man who told them!

My reply to Snow:

Fine point, Jon. I hope to see you express that specific sentiment on tonight's C4 News.

(Alas, as with many of Alex Thomson's challenging tweets/blogs, much of that more forthright opinion seems to get conveniently dropped by the time of transmission.)

Nor was France, Portugal or Spain prepared to allow Bolivian president Evo Morales, an admirable defender of Snowden, permission to overfly their respective airspaces due to (unfounded) 'fears' that Snowden was aboard his plane.

 

Similar 'undiplomatic' and media treatment is being shown to Ecuador and Venezuela. Ever-ready to assist in the demonisation of Washington's Latin American foes, the Guardian's Rory Carroll has written a specious piece asserting that president Rafael Correa of Ecuador has now turned his back on Snowden.

 

In fact, even with Correa being heavily pressurised by the US not to protect Snowden, Ecuador has not, contrary to media reports, abandoned Snowden or officially dismissed his request for asylum. As noted at Channel 4 News:

"Ecuador’s foreign minister says that media reports saying that the country is no longer considering an asylum request by NSA leaker Edward Snowden are false - and adds that they have found a microphone in the Ecuadorian embassy in London."

With all the European hypocrisy over Snowden, complicity in punishing Morales and bug find at the embassy, we might now, hopefully, see a more favourable review of Snowden's asylum applications to Ecuador, Bolivia and Venezuela.

 

Whatever transpires, Ed Snowden, someone who has cast crucial light on the true, dark world of 'allied state relations', remains holed-up, persecuted and without the slightest support from European elites.

In a timely intervention, Reporters Without Borders general secretary Christophe Deloire and Julian Assange have co-written an article in Le Monde urging EU states to protect Snowden.

Snowden has performed a great public, rather than secret, service here, not only in revealing the extent of 'friendly espionage', but the kind of thankless and vindictive response reserved for those who dare provide such information.

Meanwhile, with little evident EU appreciation of Snowden's revelations, here's a very useful reminder from Craig Murray of the true understanding between the US/UK on mutual intelligence sharing and cross-spying on citizens:

"I have repeatedly posted, and have been saying in public speeches for ten years, that under the UK/US intelligence sharing agreements the NSA spies on UK citizens and GCHQ spies on US citizens and they swap the information. As they use a shared technological infrastructure, the division is simply a fiction to get round the law in each country restricting those agencies from spying on their own citizens. I have also frequently remarked how extraordinary it is that the media keep this “secret”, which they have all known for years." 

Indeed. Great insights from Murray. And all the more valuable coming from an ex-insider now similarly reviled by the intelligence establishment. 

 

Ed Snowden and brave journalists - resisting the spooks

As the US pursues heroic whistleblower Ed Snowden around the globe, it's good to remember the selfless and invaluable service of such people in helping to expose the omnipotent rise of mass state surveillance and the elite-serving function underlying it all.

As the central figure in breaking Snowden's story, Glenn Greenwald has talked in fascinating detail about his developing dealings with this truly courageous and self-sacrificing young man who now faces a life of fear, exile and persecution.

He also speaks appreciatively of how Snowden's vital evidence has definitively helped prove the very things he and other campaigning journalists have been saying for so long now about the state's actual war: not on 'terrorism', but on its own people.

While Snowden's moral whistleblowing has been called an act of "treason" by much of the US establishment, so too has Greenwald's brave advocacy journalism been similarly condemned. 

Yet, rather than 'betraying one's country', argues Subhankar Banarjee, both have engaged in something much more honourable, a form of Gandhi-type "sedition" in exposing high criminality by "inciting people to rebel against the authority of [the] state."

Snowden's and Greenwald's dutiful exposure of PRISM and other NSA data harvesting also comes with damning revelations of British surveillance operations, notably GCHQ's illicit operation Tempora, which has tapped into huge amounts of fibre optic communications to spy on everyone from other 'friendly' states to its own private citizens.

One notional 'ally',Germany, has condemned GCHQ's monitoring of global internet and phone traffic. Another leaked document from Snowden, via Der Spiegel, offers smoking-gun evidence that American intelligence has been bugging the offices of the European Union and EU country embassies, including France and Italy, inside the US.

With EU officials reportedly furious, and German officials ready to press charges against the US and UK, Alex Thomson, writing the Channel 4 News 'Snowmail 'summary, noted: "The British – supine to the last when it comes to America – are of course silent." A rare instance of a leading broadcast journalist openly denouncing 'our side'. 

The anger and publication from Germany are, perhaps, apposite when we think of the former East Germany's Stasi operations, the scale and sophistication of which pales into insignificance compared with the reach and audacity of current Western spookdom.

This espionage in trade, disputes and commercial rivalry shows not just the extent of state paranoia and subterfuge, but the true corporate-serving function of official spying. It's a world where information and people are being monitored not just for supposed 'security' purposes, but for base, competitive profit. 

Little wonder Snowden is moved to say: "I don't want to live in a world that does these sort of things."

Even America's military own now seem to be in on the leaking, with reports that top ex-US general James Cartwright is the target of prosecution after disclosing US covert cyber attack on Iran's nuclear energy programme.

In 'covering' - rather than uncovering - the story, the BBC, had nothing more to say about America's actual criminality in the matter. Just imagine the repercussions and headlines had Iran been caught in such an act.

Such revelations are also now helping to illuminate the menacing rise of citizen surveillance.

Thus, we learn that British intelligence and the police have been running a National Domestic Extremism Unit to keep detailed tabs on political activists.

As the Guardian reports:

A total of 8,931 individuals "have their own record" on a database kept by the unit, for which the Metropolitan police is the lead force. It currently uses surveillance techniques, including undercover police, paid informants and intercepts, against political campaigners from across the spectrum.

This comes on top of other revelations that undercover officers have been infiltrating leftist organisations. No great news or surprise there, of course. From Northern Ireland to its wider colonial outposts, British intelligence almost 'wrote the manual' of black-ops.

But the scale and detail of recent operations is matched only by its growing and shameless extremity.

For example, Green MP Caroline Lucas has used her parliamentary privilege to expose the undercover work of police officer Bob Lambert who is reported to have planted a bomb in a London Debenhams store to help "bolster his credibility". The activist ex-partner of Lambert, who had a child to him during his undercover activities, said it feels"like being raped by the state".

It's also now been revealed that, while proclaiming its utmost in bringing his killers to justice and stamping out institutional racism, the Met was running an undercover smear operation against the family and friends of murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence.

If the police can do such things to this long-suffering family, just think what the wider law enforcement and surveillance state is capable of doing to others.

With all this massing evidence of Orwellian-watch and dark tricks, one might think journalists at large would be united in praising, protecting and promoting people like Snowden.

Not so. With the inevitable state backlash, note Media Lens, come the inevitable smears. Rather than highlight his brave disclosures and desperate plight, Snowden has, typically, been labelled by much of the media as vain, narcissistic, reckless and a self-deserving fugitive.

Glenn Greenwald has also now been subject to predictable character slurs after his key role in reporting Snowden's case. Yet, still he proves impressively resistant.

As independent journalist Jonathan Cook admirably notes (via Facebook):

One of the notable things about Glenn Greenwald is that, unlike other big-name journalists, he's not shy about highlighting the moral and professional failings of mainstream journalism.

 

It was a joy to see him pointing out the other day ...that Mika Brzezinski was using "White House talking points" during an interview, and telling David Gregory to his face that he had incited against him and serious journalism by echoing White House claims that Greenwald had committed a crime.

By the day it becomes clearer that the Administration has launched a black ops campaign against Glenn Greenwald (and Snowden) - and that the media are likely to be willing co-conspirators.

Two days ago it emerged that Greenwald's home had been broken into and only his computer taken.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/25/greenwald-snowden-s-files-are-out-there-if-anything-happens-to-him.html

Today he reveals that the New York Daily News and New York Times have been fed a couple of feeble smears by Obama officials. The papers appear keen to print these stories as part of the growing campaign to discredit Greenwald and distract attention from the revelations he published.

In the 1970s the Washington Post came to Daniel Ellsberg's rescue and exposed Nixon's attempts to smear him through the Watergate break-in. This time, it looks more likely the gentlemen and ladies of the press will be holding the torches so the plumbers have their hands free to get on with the burglary. 

We need every Snowden, Assange and Manning more than ever, courageously able and willing to whistleblow and spread such information. And we need every serious journalist, like Greenwald, ready to approve and assist in such exposures.

As Greenwald asserts, that energetic "courage is contagious". An already dedicated Greenwald has been further inspired by Snowden, who, in turn, was inspired by Manning, who was inspired by Wikileaks and Assange to do what he did - and, now facing a loaded court and lifetime incarceration, is paying the terrible, painful price of his principles.

All these resistant figures and the many more who campaign quietly and relentlessly with them offer enormous encouragement to concerned others who, despite their fear of extremist states and spooks, will, hopefully, feel inspired to follow in similar moral conscience.

-----------

Update (1 July 2013):

Statement from Edward Snowden in Moscow

Five key reasons for Scottish independence

With over a year to the referendum on Scottish Independence, the issues around it still seem rather abstract, non-detailed and worrying to many, particularly those still undecided on how to vote.

With that key wavering sector in mind, here's five basic reasons to consider saying Yes to an independent Scotland.

Political control 
Independence offers much greater political influence over how we shape our society.

In a world now massively driven by globalised forces and imposing institutions, the need for true participatory democracy intensifies, requiring smaller and more accountable forms of parliamentary involvement and civil engagement.  

The prevailing Union and Westminster parliament is a deeply archaic, undemocratic and conservative structure, offering no serious prospect for meaningful participation, representation or political change.  

While independence is no panacea - all the same global issues still have to be engaged -  it does allow people in Scotland the opportunity to fashion a new political modernity unshackled from the same old party cartel and parliamentary interests. 

Though a devolved Scottish parliament has been able to legislate on important areas like education and healthcare, it still lacks real control over the big levers of power. 

With full political responsibility for the first time over tax-raising, public spending, foreign and defence policy, immigration, employment rights, social security and benefits, energy, state intelligence, intellectual property, data protection, media, and all constitutional matters, a Scottish electorate could be in a better tactical position to push for the kind of society suited to what people actually want.

This might include, at some future point, closer reflection on whether Scotland wishes to retain a non-elected and privileged monarchy.

Almost all main left and progressive-thinking parties in Scotland, including the Greens, are campaigning for a Yes vote. A gathering section of trade union members in Scotland also now endorse the potential gains of independence, many now deeply disenchanted with Labour's neoliberalism, austerity agenda and attacks on welfare.  

Independence is also a buffer to an increasingly right-drifting politics, and, as the main UK parties pander to UKIP-type policies, the prospects of being ruled by an even more authoritarian Westminster parliament.

Vitally, in appealing to Labour voters, a Yes vote is not a call to support the SNP or any other party. It's about the need for progressive independence irrespective of what party people might vote for, either before or after the referendum.

Following any successful Yes vote, the electorate will, in a first post-referendum election, be free to endorse any parties or individuals suited to their political inclinations or desires. Unlike Westminster, Holyrood's proportional-based parliament is more able to have those views represented.  

A fairer Scottish parliament with a working government and legislative system already exists. Why still be burdened with a more imposing one which impedes that potential development and retains control over what people can have and may really wish for?

Economic alternatives 
Independence offers the serious opportunity of choosing an economic system based on social well-being rather than market-serving neoliberal doctrine.

It's vital to recognise the emergency-type situation that rampant neoliberalism has created, the social destruction caused by free market demands. Just look at the calamitous banking crisis, which ordinary people are paying painfully for through an austerity programme likely to last for many more years, most likely beyond 2020.

Everything Miliband and Labour are saying about the 'need' for austerity and cuts is almost identical to that coming from Cameron and Clegg. Any incoming Labour government in 2015 will continue the same, or worse, harsh policies, helping to keep themselves in comfortable office.  

As Craig Murray neatly puts it, "why a nation should surrender its freedom just to make sure Ed Balls has a ministerial car and salary while he implements Tory policies, is not a question which to me has an obvious answer."

This is a very rare chance to move in a decisively different economic direction.   

Proposals are now emerging for a more progressive economic model based on the Nordic-styled Common Weal. As discussed:

"Scotland is buzzing with people thinking about a better, more equal future and there is lots of work being done in different places. Just as the concept of neoliberalism encompassed a wide range (from Thatcher’s ‘can’t buck the market’ to Blair’s ‘we can help with the worst impacts of the market’), so the concept of Common Weal is broad and can encompass different ideas and different approaches. However, it’s very basis is that it is not simply a different version of what we have now. The last five years in the UK were simply a story of repeating the same mistakes from before. Without a fundamental change in our behaviour, we are going to continue to repeat the same mistakes indefinitely. Scotland - independent or not - must make a decision. If we continue on the current path the inevitable destination is greater inequality and ever fewer public services on which to rely. If we want something different, we have to choose it."

Rather than the prevailing and deepening economic disaster, we now have a specific blueprint for fairer distribution, social care and a welfare system that can help protect public services, most notably the NHS, from the drastic slide to privatisation we're seeing in England.

Any such alternative will, assuredly, have to be fought for, post-independence. Though supported by large parts of the SNP, some of that party leadership, with Labour, are still more pro-corporate in their priorities. Yet, while, with wide party and civil support, a Common Weal agenda seems realisable in an independent Scotland, no such initiative seems even remotely possible via Westminster.

If Thatcherism was the catalyst for devolution, rejection of the ConDem/Labour consensus represents the next logical step to independence.     

Independence will also allow a fully-sovereign parliament to abolish despised legislation like the Westminster-imposed bedroom tax.

Full tax-raising and spending powers could, instead, promote proper funding of environmentally sustainable energy resources like wind and wave power. And while the pumping of more North Sea oil will make Scotland, like Norway, one of the most revenue-rich countries in the world, it's a resource that could also be used to fund serious green initiatives that lead us away from destructive carbon dependency. 

While proposals on currency and central banking are to be detailed in a coming Scottish Government White Paper (November 2013), these are not, contrary to elevated fears, changes that will affect basic macro-economic arrangements.  

The Yes campaign have sought to allay fear-laden claims over a proposed currency union, monetary linkages and other transitional details.  

There is, alternatively, a valid case for a future single Scottish pound and clear detachment from the Bank of England. If independence is to mean anything it must, ultimately, involve real powers to determine a state's own financial policies and every political decision flowing from it.

That, of course, will also involve meaningful resistance to much higher forces of global financial orthodoxy.  

Debate over such options and challenges will go on, just as they do elsewhere. But, crucially, it's within the context of an independent parliament that people will have greater say and electoral influence on how those currency, monetary and other financial instruments evolve.    

In this regard, independence can also be a rejection of those anti-European forces whose core purpose is to protect elite interests in the City of London.

Cameron is pledging a referendum in 2015 that may lead to the UK's exit from Europe - a move which would not likely be supported by most voters in Scotland.

It's notable that while not a single newspaper in Scotland openly supports Scottish independence (the Sunday Herald seems more sympathetic, but the bias extends across the UK media and beyond - though the rise of social media may be countering that), many of those same externally-owned corporate outlets are eagerly talking-up Britain's exit from Europe. 

Contrary to Unionist and media fearmongering, Scotland would most likely remain part of the EU from the outset and could negotiate any post-independence place in Europe with relative ease.

Some in Scotland, many on the left, may, of course, oppose continued membership, just as differences of opinion prevail over any adopting of the euro. 

But, again, the key point is that, whatever those issues and feelings, independence would allow people in Scotland to make their own decisions on these matters.

Determining foreign and defence policy
Independence provides the chance to take full control of national defence and foreign policy.

This is crucial in two key regards. First and foremost, it serves an imperative moral duty not to pursue war policies devised to kill other people in foreign lands. 

Control of foreign policy means we don't have to follow illegal and aggressive wars waged against innocent civilians in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, nor see the need to raise mass armies and send soldiers to die for selfish corporate-political interests.

As a UN member, Scotland would also retain direct diplomatic powers to oppose states acting in imperialist and apartheid ways. 

Any ongoing and urgent opposition to a Scotland still tentatively tied into Nato would, likewise, be more effectively waged within a situation of independence.

The second key, related benefit of a non-aggressive foreign policy is that states usually positioned against warfare and high military expenditure are much more likely to prioritise social and health spending - putting the economy of life before the economy of death.

Why follow Westminster and continue paying astronomical sums for inhuman wars and useless militarism (over £37 billion in Afghanistan) when that money could be spent on hospitals, schools and social-serving jobs?

Removal of nuclear weapons
Independence offers the greatest ever opportunity to remove nuclear weapons of mass destruction from Faslane, while making it difficult to locate them anywhere else in the rest of the UK.

A consistent majority of Scots favour removing nuclear weapons. If the banning of such WMD was included in a new independent constitution, we would be doing ourselves and the wider world a huge service.

Contrary to the standard 'protect defence jobs' line, the money saved could be redirected into non-militarist retraining/jobs and public services. A detailed study from Scottish CND and the Scottish Trade Union Congress (STUC) on the 'risk' of cancelling Trident "showed that the number of jobs at risk was far less than often claimed and that more jobs would be created if the money was reallocated to other projects."

As Scottish CND also note:

"A legal opinion by Rabinder Singh QC and Professor Christine Chinkin, Matrix Chambers, on The Maintenance and Possible Replacement of the Trident Nuclear Missile System concluded that a replacement would constitute a breach of Article VI of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and would be a material breach of the treaty itself."

If there was no other point in voting Yes, this, in itself, would be a vital single reason for approving independence. 

Peace and security without the immoral burden and enormous, wasteful costs.

A model state
In seeking to build a more equal, just and nuclear-free country, Scotland can act as a working, progressive model of development for others to follow. 

We help ourselves while showing a different way for fellow global citizens - politically, economically and even culturally. 

One needn't be a 'nationalist' - I'm not - to support independence. Nor do we need to covet or proclaim our 'Scottishness' in the various fields of achievement - it doesn't ultimately matter where an artist, philosopher, sportsperson or other noted individual hails from - though it's good to see Artists for Independence give thoughtful voice to what that 'identity' means and what better things independence could help achieve. 

In that vein, wouldn't it be a source of quiet pride to say that the place you live in is trying to do something alternative, something more egalitarian, something that others might also aspire to?  

In advancing a tolerant, outward internationalism, rather than inward nationalism and other old sectarian fears, we have the opportunity to develop a more mature, inclusive and imaginative cultural landscape, one that doesn't depend on narrow jingoism, but, in the spirit of Robert Burns, a compassionate and generous celebration of humanity at home and abroad. 

That man to man, the world o'er,
Shall brithers be for a' that.      

Feel a little confidence. 

Use a little sense.

Show a little vision. 

Have a little courage.

Don't be feart.

 

 

Gross miscalculation of Iraq deaths - graphically shown

Check out this brilliantly-produced infographic detailing the appalling lack of public knowledge over the extent of Iraq war fatalities. Click here to enlarge.

My complaint enquiry to the BBC over this issue has now been raised to a 'stage 2' level.

As part of that request, I have noted this key poll research in my letter to BBC complaints assessor Fran Unsworth:

Since my original request, the results of a significant poll have been published showing that the general public have been very poorly informed as to the extent of war-related fatalities in Iraq: http://www.comres.co.uk/poll/937/iraqi-death-toll-survey.htm

A key reason for this must surely be the media's failure to present that core information to the public. As a leading news organisation, supposedly dedicated to the provision of wide and balanced information, the BBC must take a considerable level of responsibility for that failure.

I wish to offer this poll evidence in support of my above-noted request for an explanation as to why the BBC has favoured the IBC data and how that decision was arrived at.

I look forward to hearing your considered thoughts.

Kind regards

John Hilley

The BBC are as likely to uphold my complaint as going headline with these damning poll findings or starting to detail the true level of war-related deaths in Iraq.

But it's vital that their compliance in this great deceit continues to be exposed and challenged.

Following Media Lens's fine efforts, see, in this respect, Joe Emersberger's valiant attempts to debate a BBC correspondent over the ComRes poll findings.

 

It's a heartache - Obama's 'gun pragmatism' on Syria

"This was a tale of two President Barack Obamas, the one with
high dreams and the one who must deal with grubby realities."
Mark Mardell, BBC. 

As President Obama performs his political 'rock star' role at the G8 in Belfast, swooning the assembled schoolchildren with appeals for peace and reconciliation, it might seem almost heretical to question either his 'good heart' in proclaiming social harmony or the 'heavy heart' with which he confronts the world's wider troubles.

 

Obama's 'high-dreaming' side, as BBC North America correspondent Mark Mardell divines it, is 'loaded-down' with the heaviness of having to deal with "grubby realities" like the conflict in Syria.

 

So much for understated crises around the globe and America's own grubby dealings in those realities. 

 

Yet, quite how, we may ask, is Mardell able to 'intuit' such understandings of Obama's 'conflicted psychology'? The answer, we may suppose, lies less in Mardell's abilities as a psychologist than his role as a safely-conditioned establishment journalist.

 

When it comes to Western leaders, particularly media-adulated ones like Obama, the presumption is always of benign and thoughtful motive, even if ultimately proven to be 'mistaken'.

 

But, as with those who led the slaughters of Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama's actions over Syria suggests little room for doubt or error: beyond the hype and 'psychology', his decision to send substantive weaponry to opposition forces in Syria is a straight act of calculated warmongering.

 

The White House statement in defence of this line is, predictably, long on interventionist rhetoric and brazenly short on convincing evidence.

As noted by News Unspun:

"This points to no conclusive evidence but is rather a re-hash of previous claims, only this time the claims seen in the news over the last few weeks are prefixed with 'our intelligence community has high confidence in'."

Besides various sceptical observers and chemical weapons experts, Anthony Cordesman, a leading security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, has declared that: "the ‘discovery’ that Syria used chemical weapons might be a political ploy." 

In hawkish mode, Cordesman still insists on America being free to advance its own interests through such aggressive engagements. Yet, his frankness on the surreptitious means of doing so tells us much about the falsity of Obama's 'heartfelt' persona.

It should take little serious scrutiny to realise Washington's tortured pretext for this most dangerous escalation; it's a device of the flimsiest kind, almost entirely endorsed or passively accepted by a quiescent, rationalising media.

Again, here's Mardell with the 'heavy-heart' reading:

"He wants to avoid getting embroiled in another Middle East war and to avoid the US dictating outcomes in the region, but he doesn't want Syria to spiral further into chaos or President Bashar al-Assad to continue in power."

Though reluctant to be "embroiled" or seen to be "dictating outcomes", Obama, we're to believe, is being forced to act through concern over Assad's 'power and chaos'. There's no discussion of how Obama, Nato and the Saudi/Gulf states have wantonly fed such chaos through their determined removal of Assad, all in advancement of their own geopolitical and sectarian interests.  

In a prior servile piece, Mardell gave eager amplification to Obama's 'clarity' on chemical weapons:

"The basic news from the White House is pretty clear - they are now sure Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime has used chemical weapons against the rebels. That crosses President Obama's red line, and changes his calculus."

"This is a very hard call for Mr Obama. He knows his country doesn't want to get caught up in another war. However, many in the West see this as a simple contest of right and wrong. It also has aspects of a regional Sunni/Shia civil war that could spiral out of control.

He almost certainly feels that such involvement would in the end not enhance the name of the US in the region.

But there are pressing humanitarian arguments to stop this now and to make sure those the West sees as the good guys win, before Islamic militants claim victory.

Mr Obama is at the helm of the country to which the liberal interventionists look to provide a lead. It is worth noting that you don't hear the same cries of "something must be done" from Brazil, China or Sweden.

But many politicians in Britain and France still feel a heavy imperial burden to use their well-honed militaries to re-make the world." [My italics.]

Even Kipling, unsurpassed in such burdensome mission, would no-doubt have approved of Mardell's 'heart-rending', liberal words.

What Mardell routinely avoids saying is simply that more arms to the conflict will kill more people and prolong the misery. Alert to this reality, the UN have urged that no more weapons be entered into the conflict.

Yet, dutifully, Mardell can only reiterate Obama's 'heavy heart' in doing so. Writing on Twitter, he asks:

@BBCMarkMardell via Twitter
USA will give military assistance to Syrian rebels. But is Obama's heart really in it ? http://t.co/XlaCdMJZ45

Further evidence of such craven apologetics can be seen in this revealing exchange between Media Lens Editor David Cromwell and Mardell (ML message board, 17 June 2013):

Hello Mark,

I hope things are good with you, and thanks for your latest blog at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22900710

You write:

'The basic news from the White House is pretty clear - they are now sure Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime has used chemical weapons against the rebels.'

Especially post-Iraq, no responsible journalist should write, 'they are now sure'. How can you possibly tell without mind-reading powers? By all means, report that the White House 'asserts' or 'says' or 'claims'. This is not a trivial matter of semantics. Wouldn't you agree?

Best wishes

David Cromwell

Dear David, all good here and hope you are well. I accept you have a point - i dont know for certain what is in their minds, only what they say. But I think we see Obama in a different way - (and may be i am attempting a mind reading trick again !) - I think he wanted to make sure the evidence was rock solid before publishing it because of the faulty iraq intelligence and the huge damage it did. Which is why the USA lagged far behind other countries in saying this. I dont think he is looking for an excuse to act - i think he is very cautious about the evidence on its own merit, but also because he doesn't want to get sucked in. Although in the end the US might act i really think Obama is different - pragmatic in the national interest but not a liberal interventionist in the classic sense - why i think that is, you may see from the last paragraph of the blog. I think merely portraying Obama as weak because he wants to avoid the military option is misunderstanding his world view - he's not a hammer and has some understanding of what it is like to be a nail.

But I accept there is a world of difference from what i suspect, or think, and what i know and take you point about the bare assertion.
Mark Mardell .."say they are sure" would have been better.

Hello Mark,

Glad things are good with you – I’m fine too, thanks. Thanks for kindly responding and providing further comment. It’s good that you see and accept my point: ‘ “say they are sure” would have been better.’

You also say in your email:

‘But I accept there is a world of difference from what I suspect, or think, and what i know and take you point about the bare assertion.’

It’s not so much the difference between what you suspect and know. The point is surely not to take at face value what governments say; especially given the deceptions that paved the way to the Iraq war. It’s common on BBC News – as elsewhere – to see journalists tell the public: ‘The White House is sure’, ‘Washington believes’, ‘Obama thinks’ and so on. History shows that often ‘there is a world of difference’ between what governments say they ‘believe’ or are ‘sure’ about, and what is true. Maybe you can take a journalistic lead in pushing back against this propaganda line of ‘what Washington believes’. Don’t be the middleman dishing it up to the public, garnishing it with BBC gravitas. Why not use your influential position as the BBC’s North America editor to challenge and scrutinise more thoroughly?

‘I think we see Obama in a different way...’

Who is the ‘we’ here? You may choose to see Obama in a different way from past US leaders. But then, that is your personal opinion and surely not the stance of an impartial journalist with an objective understanding of history and realpolitik.

Best wishes

David Cromwell

In another damning indictment, Media Lens co-editor David Edwards exposes the Guardian's repeated complicity and preferred viewing of Obama:

"Despite all of this, a Guardian editorial offered a strikingly different judgement. Noting that Obama had decided to authorise military aid on the basis 'that Bashar al-Assad had used chemical weapons against the opposition', the editors commented:

'That use is an outrage and is against international agreements. It adds to the charge sheet against the Assad regime.'

These are among the most shocking comments we have ever seen in the Guardian. Despite the indisputable fraudulence of US-UK claims regarding Iraqi WMD, an equally staggering litany of lies on Libya, and despite the existence of gaps and doubts so reminiscent of Iraq 2002-2003, the Guardian is willing to quietly endorse the latest claims on Syria – 'Assad' clearly has used chemical weapons and that use should be added to the charge sheet against him. Once again, when it really matters, the Guardian editors are on-message, on-side and boosting war propaganda."

Obama's arms pledge, alongside ending of the EU arms embargo, takes us yet another alarming step towards an all-out Western attack on Syria, now most likely facilitated by an impending no-fly zone and ultimate Libya-style aerial bombardment.

Besides provoking Russia, it now draws every other regional state into a direct war crisis.  Thus we see the compliance of Egypt and Jordan, now in effective coalition with the US/Nato and Saudi/Gulf axis.

Alongside Lebanon and Hezbollah's increasing involvement, we also see Iran's responsive decision to send 4000 troops to aid the Syrian government, providing a further Western excuse to continue hostilities against Tehran.

Nor is the election of 'moderate' Iranian president Hassan Rouhani likely to lessen the threatening actions of the West, either in relation to Syria or sanctions-battered Iran itself. And how predictable to hear Obama, Cameron and Hague now requesting Rouhani to 'prove' his 'liberalised credentials' through diplomacy while the West pile weaponry into Syria.

Likewise, Israel's tactical desire is for ongoing warfare, greater destabilisation of Syria, and eventual humbling of Iran.

Contrary to the 'reluctant missionary' message from the BBC and other power-serving media, Obama is deeply and energetically mired in all these dark manoeuvrings.    

While Mardell waxes lyrical about Obama's 'pragmatic' considerations, the mass shifting of arms to the Syrian opposition and, inevitably, jihadist, forces - "because guns are currency" - has created terrifying new prospects for more mass civilian deaths.

Already responsible for criminal drone strike killings and prolonging the agony of Afghanistan, Obama is also now directly to blame for promoting intensified murder and suffering in Syria. 

But, then, Mardell, the Guardian and so much of our 'heart-searching' liberal media "see Obama in a different way".