There is just now a very worrying
McCarthyesque campaign to discredit democratic dissent in the UK. In a
democracy people should appreciate the value of democratic debate at times of
crisis as a means of determining the correct course of action after taking all
points of view on board. Establishing the truth in conflict situations is extremely
difficult. Hence, the value of thoroughly investigating an alleged war crime to
(a) confirm it has taken place and (b) establish who committed it.
It is one thing to defend Assad
but, it is quite another to request that, before we bomb Syria, we ask questions
that anyone who wants to find out what happened in Douma would ask. So, the branding
people who ask such questions an “Assad apologist” raises its own questions.
What would those who wanted to
bomb Syria have lost had they allowed an investigation - which was due to start
on Saturday, the day after the bombs fell – to take place? The element of surprise?
Bearing in mind Trump had tweeted the world that missiles were acomin’ that’s
not credible. Fear of another imminent CW attack? With the rest of the world’s eyes
on Douma and the actions of Assad’s army that isn’t credible either. So why the
rush?
A cynic might suggest that US/UK
feared any investigation might show there was either no CW attack or that Assad
was not responsible for any CW attack, thus invalidating the ‘humanitarian
intervention’ legal defence that US/UK intended to employ in their
self-appointed role of World Policeman. Either way, perhaps the last thing the
world needs is trigger happy sheriff. Hence the need for the rule of law to be
respected. And if the sheriff’s suspect is convicted then punishment can be
meted out. But surely not before an investigation, never mind before a trial.
So, anyone with respect for the
rule of law, for justice and a determination to uncover the truth would welcome
challenging questions, wouldn’t they? Apparently not. Not only is there a near-uniform
across the media retort of “Assad apologist” directed to anyone asking these
questions, there is now a determination among some that such questions should
not be asked at all.
Take this example from Sky News yesterday
involving The Henry Jackson Society’s Dr Alan Mendoza on the pro-bombing before investigation side
and Prof Piers Robinson on the pro-investigation
first side.
Mendoza started by reiterating the
pro-bombing before investigation side’s
mantra of “Assad has form” argument. Robinson countered by saying some sources
(such as the Red Cross) stated there was no proof on the ground in this
instance and followed up, logically, that a “proper investigation” should take
place to avoid repeating “past mistakes”.
Mendoza replied that three
countries (US/UK/France) have
evidence, a contention he tries to back up with such expressions as these
countries “clearly believe” and “It appears they have evidence”, rather than “have demonstrably
proven” or “definitely have proof”.
Given that the pro-bombing before investigation argument
was pushed forward with such equivocal phraseology it answered none of Robinson’s
concerns. So, Robinson, without ever expressing any comment on Assad, far less
anything sympathetic, merely suggests that “it's reasonable to keep an open mind”
and we should “allow a proper investigation to find out who is responsible” and
that “history gives pause for thought.”
Mendoza, in an apparently agitated
state, says. “So, was it your mother who did this -seriously - this chemical
weapons attack?” Robinson ignores the provocation and steadfastly reiterates pleas
for “reason, “thought”, “investigation”, “objectivity.”
Obviously, such notions are not
reasonable to some in The Henry Jackson Society, seeing them as obstacles to
the march of their special brand of imperialism. Opponents are not there to be argued
with. They are there to be crushed. Mendoza
finally – and memorably – runs out of patience, ranting that its “absolutely
appalling” that “national television” allowed someone with Robinson’s views to “defend
a dictator”. Of course, run through the tape and you’ll find not even a slight defence
of Assad. Mendoza either misunderstood the conversation or made that up. It was
a crude attempt to delegitimise “reason, “thought”, “investigation”, “objectivity”.
The Sky anchor then reasonably
suggests – more to defend Sky than Robinson, but commendably nonetheless - that
it’s fair to ask questions like, “what might happen after Assad” without being
called “an apologist for Assad”. But Mendoza is having none of that. His
mission appears to have been to appear on our screens solely to spread this
smear as far and as wide as he can in the time allowed. “No, I think you are
very much being an apologist for what Assad has done”.
Exchanges like this tell us that
legitimate dissent and argument is under attack. Mendoza’s momentary lapse of reason illustrated
the desire among his ilk to intimidate the likes of Sky News out of (a) ever
inviting dissenting voices into our screens and (b) ever daring to ask
challenging questions themselves.
This isn’t idle conjecture. The
organisation he is a member of, the super-connected Henry Jackson Society, is a
Neocon outfit who see it as their mission to influence discourse and therefore opinion
and indeed task some members with campaigning against dissenters from the
Neocon narrative, such as Chomsky and others. See here this copy of the minutes of its Post London Launch Meeting, attended by, among others, one Dr Alan Mendoza, cited therein
as its Executive Director.
Dr Mendoza and his sort are perfectly entitled
to campaign for their views. But I’m not sure they believe we all are.
No comments:
Post a Comment