Whited Tombs of Dead Men’s Bones

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones…

Matthew 23:27

Whenever people on the left criticise ‘the West,’ a customary response on social media and from Britain’s inky flock is to demand damnation of some other sinner. Condemn British connivance with Saudi atrocities in Yemen and it’s ‘whatabout Iran?’ Castigate Israel for grinding Palestinians to sand and it’s ‘whatabout about Assad?’ Demand the US closes its trespassing torture chamber at Guantanamo and it’s ‘whatabout about IS?’ The Stop the War Coalition (STWC) have borne these ‘yeah, buts’ for years, latterly from Peter Tatchell. Back in 2002-03, ‘Stoppers’ were routinely badgered to condemn Saddam Hussein’s well-documented and uncontroversial atrocities as part of a grimy ploy to daub anyone who opposed dropping explosives on children as a friend to tyranny. This scuttling rhetoric shrivels under the light of reason, of course. Indeed, I’m confident that seasoned practitioners of this swindle understand quite clearly the ruse they’re perpetrating. But I’ll sum up my objections, presuming Noam Chomsky’s maxim, that the duty of the intellectual (or blogger) is to tell the truth, about things that matter, to the right audience.

TatchellSTWCMy first objection is ethical: that the individual’s first concern should always be with their own misdeeds and those done by others with their help or acquiescence. Applying this to affairs between nations, their scrutiny should fall chiefly on the behaviour of their own government and of its allies. They can of course decry (and should not defend) the outrages of other states but if they support them with neither vote nor tax, they share no responsibility for them. Applied to the world today, this means my most pressing concern should always be with the actions of the UK government and its imperial master. Vassals and allies, such as Saudi Arabia and Israel, are also my concern because their litany of crimes is committed with British arms, aid and advice. Indeed, as Prof. Bruce Reidel of the Brookings Institute said recently, ‘if the United States of America and the United Kingdom — tonight — told King Salman that this war [on Yemen] has to end, it would end tomorrow because the Royal Saudi Air force cannot operate without American and British Support.’ Israel is not nearly so dependent but has still benefited from arms, including sniper rifles, worth £320m since 2014.[1] Passing over these crimes to rail at others in which we have no part is cossetted posturing; ‘virtue signalling,’ to use a vogue expression. When our government is not terrorising the world, directly or indirectly, when we can plausibly claim to be ‘intervening’ out of something other than venal calculation, then we may concern ourselves with the crimes of other nations and hope for a spark of legitimacy.

My second objection concerns the practical responsibility to use one’s energy and opportunities to the greatest effect. Where can the British anti-war movement, a progressive journalist or an angry tweeter hope to leave even the most fleeting mark? Not on foreign governments, certainly. The thump of feet marching on British streets is barely heard in Whitehall, so why imagine it will rattle the walls of the Kremlin? I certainly don’t write in the expectation of being read by members the British Government, let alone those of North Korea. In any case, as Chomsky put it, ‘speaking truth to power’ is an overrated pursuit when power knows the truth. The most recent exception to this I can think of was the great anti-war march in February 2003. But even millions freezing in Hyde Park didn’t shake the Blair camarilla from their murderous fealty to the Bush Regime (though we perhaps came closer to averting that war than with any other).

No, the greatest effect the dissident can have is on her own community and, through that, the state. I write hoping to be read by my fellow citizens and hoping to affect, if only in some microscopic way, their thinking, their voting, and their organising. STWC march and hold street stalls to educate and inform the British people about our government’s crimes because they are something we share responsibility for and have the ability to affect. That should always be our priority, even were ‘their’ crimes to be large and ‘ours’ small (instead of the reverse). If we can do something about our crimes but can only shout about theirs, then our smaller crimes should still be our foremost occupation. Journalists would do better to keep this principle but, since they do not, it is up to citizens to shine light where it is needed and not waste time doing work that, honest or not, is already being done. Why should STWC run stalls denouncing Putin for the villain he undoubtedly is when the media does that daily with vastly greater volume? It’s like working one’s way to the front at a gig and humming the baseline for benefit of the crowd. What’s more, when it’s an official enemy and not an ally, it’s indulgent. My condemnation of Russian human rights abuses would have no material effect on that country’s leaders, would not educate a British public who are told of them weekly, and could not bring about any beneficial change in a British government that already considers Russia an enemy (though it might persuade the Tories to return their donations). Contrast that with the Chagos Islands scandal, where the media are usually silent, the public know little, and our government’s behaviour over fifty years has been contemptible.

Nor does the demand for balance go both ways: the domesticated journalist who spends his career reviling whichever of Eurasia or Eastasia is being liberated this year will never be asked to reserve any ink for Oceania. Well trained journalists care, cry, and condemn only when it is convenient to their governments; hearts bleed but eyes remain closed. They absorb this conditioning unconsciously through years of socialisation until they know instinctively when they ‘cannot stand idly by’ and when they must. Our ‘responsibility to protect’ the Kurds, for example, depended on who was attacking them (e. g. Saddam Hussein or the Turkish government). The real measure of the dishonesty of these calls for even-handedness is that they are never made of the dissidents who live in enemy states. The people who demand that STWC condemn Putin never demanded Pussy Riot call out Obama’s drone terror. Even if legitimate grounds for criticism were admitted, the idea that they should make those criticisms would rightly be seen as an absurd waste of their limited resources.

Everyone instinctively understands all of this when matters are confined to every day personal relationships. To borrow from Wilde, we know to respect the person who never says a moral thing and never does a wrong thing more than we do the whisky priest. Campaigning groups like Amnesty International aside, most who rail at the misdeeds of other nations are using their freedom merely to say moral things, knowing they’ll pay no price and the victim will gain no benefit. The trade of journalism needs this lesson most of all. The press bears the greatest responsibility for informing the public and theirs is the greatest failure. Until they learn this lesson, or rather carry it from their personal lives and put in on the page, newspapers will continue to be whited sepulchres: now gilded with print but still full of dead men’s bones.

Notes.

_________________________

Image: Woe unto You, Scribes and Pharisees (James Tissot French, 1836-1902 )

[1] Senior fellow for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution and a professor at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. Video of his remarks is available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W55QaV8bWw For a report on British arms sales to Israel, see Jamie Merrill ‘Exclusive: UK sells $445m of arms to Israel, including sniper rifles,’ Middle East Eye, 24 April 2018, available at https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/exclusive-uk-sells-more-500m-arms-israel-including-sniper-rifles-718473139 (accessed 11/09/18).

Advertisements

Tales of Self-Laid Eggs

Nadine Dorries tweet

A fundamental misunderstanding of cause and effect.

Last month, news-sellers reported that BAE Systems (Purveyors of Finest Quality Death to the Gentry) had won a contract to flog the Australian government nine new warships, which will ‘provide the Australian Defence Force with the highest levels of lethality and deterrence.’[i] British companies will supply a number of the internal systems and so play a very real role in Australia’s ongoing battle to repel the onslaught of drowning asylum seekers.[ii]

As one might expect, a clutch of Brexiteers, led by the Ragged-Trousered Stockbroker, Nigel Farage, took time from managing their foreign citizenship claims and overseas investment funds to trumpet this £20bn victory for Global Britain. Nadine Dorries MP lauded it as an example of just the sort of trade deal (completed while we’re still a member of the EU) that the EU (of which we are still a member) has prevented us from doing (it hasn’t).

In fact, though a BAE design, the ships will not be built in the UK at all, but in Australian shipyards, and Britain will receive only a slice of the £19.6bn headline figure. But I’m not concerned here with Brexit, Tory boosterism or even exactly how much national pride should attach to selling engines of nautical slaughter. Instead, consider this caveat, tucked away in the analysis by the BBC’s Scottish business editor Douglas Fraser,

However, this looks like a design which was heavily subsidised by the UK taxpayer, being sold overseas, and wholly to the benefit of BAE Systems. It appears that the UK taxpayer sees none of the direct payback or royalties from that investment.[iii]

This is not unusual. There is a long record, in the US and UK, of the public sector incubating and subsidising private sector success stories; something that the champions of capitalism generally try to hide under a thicket of ‘free market’ euphuism. They prefer instead the ideology of the ‘self-made man’ (or company) that rises to prominence and wealth through nothing but their own vision and hard work. Sometimes, this pretence requires the most preposterous elision; take for instance Philip Anschutz, who the Forbes 400 Rich List in 1998 described as ‘self-made’ even though he had inherited an oil and gas field worth $500 million.[iv]

More generally, there is a long story of the public sector supporting and protecting the private sector and free market. I’ll list a few examples that I don’t have space to discuss: developing and promoting a culture of property rights and, later, intellectual property rights; providing infrastructure, such as roads, railways, ports, power, and communication; providing an educated workforce through a public school system; subsidising low wages through a welfare state; underwriting risky overseas sales (e.g. British export credit guarantees); offering tax breaks and inducements for investment (such as export processing zones); privatisations, bail-outs (such as of the banks in 2008), treating work- or product-related illness;[v] repairing environmental damage; and providing cheap fuel through periodic liberation of oil supplies.

The most obvious form of public sector support for the private sector, and the one that has the worst reputation, is to prevent a free market at all through protectionism: the use of tariff and non-tariff barriers to prevent overseas competitors trouncing one’s domestic industries. While it’s officially denounced – especially by enthusiastic practitioners such as Reagan and Trump –  it’s fair to say that protectionism has characterised US and UK industrial development (and elsewhere); not least through the acquisition of empire.[vi] The US began to champion freer trade only following World War II; at least partly fulfilling the prediction of its 18th president, Ulysses S. Grant, that ‘within 200 years, when America has gotten out of protection all that it can offer, it too will adopt free trade.’[vii]

Even when they don’t protect industries from international competition, governments still provide considerable support in other ways. Despite the fall of communism and the ascendance, until 2008 at least, of ‘free market’ ideology, it’s accurate to say that western capitalist societies still have substantially planned economies. Most obviously, governments plan economies through state-owned enterprises, through Research & Development (R&D), infrastructure spending, and through sectoral industrial policy. Additionally, modern corporate capitalism ensures that a handful of enormously powerful transnational corporations plan their activities, often in concert (often in conflict) with governments.[viii] It’s R&D spending and the use of government purchasing that I’m going to discuss here.

In the UK and particularly the US, government spending on scientific and ‘defence’ R&D has been enormous. For instance, between the 50s and 90s, US federal government spending accounted for 50-70% of the country’s entire R&D spending.[ix]  As late as 1958, federal funding covered an estimated 85% of total R&D on electronics.[x] In the 1950s and 60s, the Pentagon supplied more than 30% of IBM’s R&D budget.[xi] Mariana Mazzucato, in The Entrepreneurial State, summarises the history of hi-tech as one in which ‘nearly all the technological revolutions of the past – from the Internet to today’s green tech revolution – required a massive push from the state.’[xii]

The US’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is a fine example of the US Government incubating hi-tech before it’s released to the market. DARPA was set up in 1958 to give the US ‘technological superiority’ in multiple sectors of its economy and has always been ‘aggressively mission-oriented’ rather than merely profit-oriented. With a budget of $3bn annually, it is structured to ‘bridge the gap between blue-sky academic work, with long time horizons, and the more incremental technological development occurring within the military.[xiii] 

Going way beyond simply funding research, DARPA funded the formation of computer science departments, provided start-up firms with early research support, contributed to semi-conductor research and support to human-computer interface research and oversaw the early stages of the Internet… such strategies contributed hugely to the development of the computer industry during the 1960s and 1970s, and many of the technologies later incorporated in the design of the personal computer were developed by DARPA-funded researchers[xiv]

Early achievements for DARPA were ‘key technologies’ such as ‘high-speed networking, advances in integrated circuits, and the emergence of massively parallel super-computers’.[xv] Such was its success that, under the first Clinton Administration (1993-96), DARPA became the ‘lead agency in a new effort to help fledgling technologies gain a hold in commercial markets.’[xvi] In the 1970s, DARPA funded a laboratory affiliated with the University of Southern California where anyone who believed they had developed a superior design of microchip could get it fabricated to prototype stage. By so doing, the state subsidised the birth of personal computers in the 1970s, the first of which Apple introduced in 1976.[xvii] As the New York Times reported as far back as 1989, ‘many fundamental computer technologies… can be traced to [DARPA’s] backing, including the basic graphics techniques that make the Apple Macintosh computer easy to use’.[xviii] More of Apple in a moment, but let’s also note that much of this spending was disguised (or at least rendered more ideologically palatable) by being conducted by DARPA. The NYT again:

Under the rubric of national security, the Pentagon can undertake programs like Sematech [a research consortium to help the US semiconductor industry compete] that would arouse opposition if done by another agency in the name of industrial policy…[xix]

And DARPA is not the only instrument of government support. Mazzucato discusses several more, including the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Programme and the Orphan Drug Act. Founded in 1982, SBIR plays an increasingly influential role as the first port of call for entrepreneurs looking for funding and, with a budget of $2bn annually, has ‘guided the commercialisation of hundreds of new technologies from the laboratory to the market.’[xx] The Orphan Drug Act of 1983 provides tax incentives, R&D subsidies, fast-track drug approval and strong intellectual property and marketing rights for products designed to treat conditions suffered by fewer than 200,000 people. This support played an important role in the development of major players, such as Biogen and Genentech, but has also successfully been exploited by giants such as GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, and Pfizer.[xxi]  DARPA, SBIR, and the Orphan Drug Act are just three, very large, programmes of market intervention that the US has run over decades.

Let’s go back to Apple for a moment. Discuss the achievements of free market capitalism on Twitter for more than ten minutes and someone will be bound to hold up the ubiquitous iPhone as clinching proof that the profit motive leads to shiny, unscratchable utopia.  Mazzucato makes Apple’s flagship a centrepiece of her study and devotes an entire chapter to tracing the origin of almost its every bell and whistle to the public sector. As a ‘smart’ phone it would be nothing without the Internet; the earliest incarnation of which (ARPANET) was developed by DARPA in the late 60s (with a parallel system built by the National Physical Laboratory in the UK). Touchscreens can be dated back to the work of E. A. Thompson at the Royal Radar Establishment in Malvern in the 1960s and the Centre for European Nuclear Research (CERN) in the 1970s.[xxii] Siri began life as the SRI-led Cognitive Assistant that Learns and Organizes (CALO) project within DARPA’s Personalized Assistant that Learns (PAL), a joint programme with the Swiss Institute of Technology (EPFL). SRI spun off Siri in 2007 as a commercial venture and Apple bought it in 2010, integrating it into the iPhone 4S in 2011.[xxiii] LCD screens were first created by Westinghouse in the 1970s and the work was funded almost exclusively by the US Army when companies such as Apple, 3M, IBM, XEROX, DEC, and Compaq refused to take the risk. The Lithium Ion battery was developed with government funding and the cornerstones of the World Wide Web (HTTP and HTML) were first implemented at CERN. Finally, GPS began life as NAVSTAR, a strictly military use system, to this day still funded by the US Airforce.[xxiv] For a fuller view, consider this schematic:

iPhone_OriginsCropped

Taken from Mazzucato (2013[2018), p. 116

So that’s a sample of the US picture. Over the pond, there is Innovate UK, which in 2016-17 had a budget of £561m and, through competitions, awarded grants of between £250K and £10m to businesses and research organisations working on emerging technologies; health and life sciences; infrastructure systems; and manufacturing and materials. The London Co-Investment Fund supports start-ups in the capital and disburses money from a purse including £25 million from the Mayor of London’s Growing Places Fund. Up until 2015, the Government also provided discounted broadband to 50,000 businesses.[xxv]

As of 2017, the British government (like the US) is ‘pouring billions of pounds’ into Artificial Intelligence research, 5G, and driverless cars. ‘Investment in electric vehicles,’ reported Cnet last November, ‘includes £400 million for a charging infrastructure fund, an extra £100 million in Plug-In-Car Grant, which subsidises purchases of electric vehicles, and £40 million in charging R&D.’ This government spending, which also includes more computer science teachers in schools, is to ‘help businesses grow to scale and hopefully find the UK’s next tech unicorn.’[xxvi]

Touchscreen

E. A. Thompson’s early touchscreen

A notable difference between state investment and private investment is that the state provides ‘patient capital’ while the private sector is ‘impatient’.[xxvii]  The state takes the long-term view, often sinking large sums into areas that are merely theoretical. In this sense, it deals with uncertainty rather than merely risk. Risk is quantifiable and can be priced into business decisions. Venture Capitalists (VCs) can deal with risk and accept a certain amount of it; a quantified possibility that a given investment won’t come off.  Uncertainty, conversely, cannot be quantified or priced into a business venture. It’s the ‘unknown unknowns’ that may mean years of patient research lead into a wall. Much government investment occurs long before VC comes into play; using public funds to gradually carve eldritch clouds of uncertainty into a still risky but, at least defined, landscape upon which a market can be built.

The Internet and nanotechnology are both examples of this process. The market had no interest in either because they were too long-term (‘blue sky’ as the jargon has it). There was no clear idea of a product, a demand for that product, or the attendant risks. There was only uncertainty. What was required was mission-oriented rather than profit-oriented effort. Similarly, it’s highly unlikely the market would ever have put a man on the moon. There was little obvious commercial opportunity, too much basic research required, and the uncertainty was simply too high. It took the public sector — the vast sums of money, the herculean intellectual effort, and the terrible sacrifice of life — to conquer that uncertainty and create a world in which, decades later, Elon Musk could spend millions proving that no black hole sucks as hard as an arsehole.

TeslaOrbit

Welcome to Earth. Intelligent pop: 0

The state doesn’t merely incubate products by funding their development or the science that leads to them. Government can be the main, if not their only, customer. The US Government is the ‘single largest purchaser of goods and services in the world’ and a ‘vital source of business for companies…’[xxviii] To take a past example, Fortune Magazine conceded in 1948 that ‘the aircraft industry today cannot satisfactorily exist in a pure, competitive, unsubsidized, “free-enterprise” economy.  It never has been able to. Its huge customer has always been the United States Government, whether in war or in peace.’[xxix]  As late as 1968, the US military bought 40% of all semiconductor production and the willingness of the US Government to buy processor chips ‘in quantity at premium prices allowed a growing number of companies to refine their production skills and develop elaborate manufacturing facilities.’[xxx] In 2016, the US Government became the top purchaser (along with private households) of healthcare products, spending $918.5bn annually.[xxxi]

In the UK, the government ‘acts as a significant purchaser in various sectors of the economy,’ with the two ‘stand out’ areas being pharmaceuticals and defence.[xxxii] Since 1957, the UK Government has regulated the price of pharmaceuticals with a policy, which (since 1969) has also had as its objective ‘a strong and profitable pharmaceutical industry’.

Participation by drug companies is voluntary, but universal. Every five years the government sets out a price trajectory that is designed to provide a reasonable rate of return, while ensuring value for money for taxpayers.[xxxiii]

The policy is seen as a success, in that it has kept prices down for the consumer, but is also believed by some experts to have been ‘critical in explaining the difference between the success of British pharmaceutical firms and the failure of their French rivals.’[xxxiv]

In defence, the Government is essentially the sole customer because our exports are comparatively slender. According to an evidence paper submitted to the UK Government’s ‘Foresight Future of Manufacturing’ project in 2013, ‘government purchasing decisions in defence have directly led to the maintenance of a defence sector of reasonable size’.[xxxv] The authors note that, while expensive, the system is successful in that it at least allows Britain to ‘preserve some modicum of military independence.’[xxxvi] Interestingly, they also argue that since foreign exports are so limited, policy in this area should be seen as being about preserving domestic military production capability and so a part of defence rather than industrial policy. In which case, one might wonder why we recycle larges sums of public money into private profit when these companies who are effectively sub-departments of the state.

All of the forgoing raises an obvious question. What does the public sector get in return for its investment; for all the forms of support we’ve discussed? It’s an axiom of business that those who take risks should also take a fair share of the reward when those risks pay off. For the state, this could take two forms. One would be a direct return on the investment made in a new technology, product or supportive measure. This very often does not happen; costs might be socialised, but profits are largely privatised (or the money is squandered). Where was the return on the public sector’s investment in computing or the Internet? SIRI cost at least $150m to develop and, while Apple paid hundreds of millions for it, that money did not go back to the American taxpayer but to the spun-off company that owned it and some VCs who put in an extra $24m late in the development process.[xxxvii]  Take for another example the US telephone companies. As David Rosen wrote in 2013 for Counterpunch,

They’ve pocketed an estimated $360 billion through questionable rate increases, subsidies, tax breaks and overcharges.  Instead of building out the “information superhighway” promised by Al Gore two decades ago, they directed the money to building-out 2nd-rate wireless businesses, overpaying their executives and rewarding stockholders – and all at the customer’s expense.  As a result, the U.S. has become a 2nd tier communications nation, ranked 15th in broadband.[xxxviii]

One can argue that jobs (effectively state-subsidized jobs) are created, but hi-tech firms in particular specialise in producing their goods offshore and for low pay. For example, Mazzucato cites figures estimating that the top nine executives working for Apple together pocketed in 2012 the same amount of money that it took 95,000 of their workers to earn.[xxxix] And we should all remember that jobs are not a gift or a favour from business – they are a transaction, in which the employee comes off worse.

Of course, the main way that the public sector should recoup its investment in the private sector is through taxation and here, dear reader, we hardly need tarry for long. The headline stories of the likes of the GAFA companies (Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple) distract from a far larger story of big business avoiding, evading, and lobbying-away tax that I’m not going into here. It suffices to say that the current controversy over large companies not paying their fair share of tax isn’t merely about the state imposing duties on companies in order to fund its expenditure. Rather, it’s often a case of payback: companies returning on the investment the public sector has made, if not in them directly, then in creating the arena in which they operate. The GAFA organisations only exist because of the public sector. It was the American and British state that created the personal computer, the Internet, the World Wide Web, and the capacity to process ‘Big Data’ on which Facebook and Amazon rely. It was the American state, via the SBIR Programme, that provided Apple with its start-up funding. It was the American state that created the Backrub search algorithm on which Google is based.[xl] And it is the state that keeps them safe, builds roads for their customers to reach them, ports and railways for their suppliers to stock them, educates and cares for their workers, and — through welfare payments — subsidizes their wage bill.

What can we conclude from all of this? Five things, I think. Firstly, that the stereotype of the bold, dynamic private sector versus the conservative, staid public sector often reverses the truth. History shows the public sector very frequently to be far more adventurous and farsighted than the private sector. It’s the first dragon in the den: there on the ground floor, thinking out of the box, looking up at the blue sky and scanning the horizon, generating the thought shower, running with it, then taking it to the next level, and not just going for the low-hanging fruit.  It’s Big Business’s mentor, its patron, its partner, and its best customer. We’ve seen how the state is a heavy investor in innovation but, more than that, the public sector is space in which the market is born and thrives. Without the state clearing the ground and guarding the perimeters, there’s nowhere safe to put the market.

Secondly, the conservatism of the private sector is driven by its need to keep one eye on the bottom line, the quarterly return. While the state, at its best, can be driven by a mission, corporations are powered by the fiduciary duty; the need, above all other considerations, to make money for their shareholders.[xli] Yes, there are genuine entrepreneurs, people with a dream, and start-ups with a vision, but corporations as legal entities care only about making the next buck. Putting the argument at its strongest, there can be no sense of public service among these paper psychopaths.

Thirdly, all economies are planned by somebody. Pretending that ‘leaving it to the market’ means that one’s economy is not planned is disingenuous. Rather, the question should be who does the planning: democratically-elected government at the national level and workers’ councils lower down or barely accountable private capital driven by profit?

Fourthly, its past time for an accounting of the true role of the public sector in the world we see around us and carry in our pockets. Not only that, but the investment of workers in innovation should be properly understood, acknowledged, and rewarded – rather than merely perpetuating a culture in which people are told to just shut up and be grateful for the gift of employment.

Finally, the giants of the private sector must be made to realise that they’re cutting away the branch on which they sit. By avoiding tax, and contributing to the hollowing out of the state, concentrated private capital is increasingly parasitic on a withering public sector. And I do mean parasitic rather than merely symbiotic, since the parasite is in danger of killing its host and, before that, of cutting the vital stream of nourishment that keeps it alive: basic scientific research. The less material capacity and ideological freedom the state has to imagine, research, invest, and — yes — often fail, the less fruit will be there for the likes of Apple to pluck. The well of ideas will run dry. The golden eggs need to take better care of the goose that laid them.

_________

Notes

“Self made men, indeed! Why don’t you tell me of the self-laid egg?” is a quotation attributed to the political scientist, Francis Leiber, in 1882

[i] BBC News ‘BAE wins multi-billion pound Australian warship contract,’ 29th June 2018, available at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44649959 (Accessed 08/07/2018).

[ii] See Jonathan Pearlman ‘Australia sends in its navy to push asylum-seeker boats back to Indonesia,’ The Telegraph, 7th January 2014, available at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10555392/Australia-sends-in-its-navy-to-push-asylum-seeker-boats-back-to-Indonesia.html (Accessed 12/07/2018); Ben Doherty and Calla Wahlquist, ‘Australia among 30 countries illegally forcing return of refugees, Amnesty says,’ Guardian 24th February 2016, available at https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/feb/24/australia-among-30-countries-illegally-forcing-return-of-refugees-amnesty-says (Accessed 12/07/2018); Mark Isaacs ‘There’s No Escape From Australia’s Refugee Gulag,’ Foreign Policy 30th April 2018, available at https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/04/30/theres-no-escape-from-australias-refugee-gulag/ (Accessed 12/07/2018)

[iii] BBC News, op. cit.

[iv] Responsible Wealth (2004 Press Release) ‘Forbes 400 Richest Americans: They Didn’t Do It Alone’ 24th September 2004, available at http://www.faireconomy.org/press_room/2004/forbes_400_richest_americans_they_didnt_do_it_alone (accessed 09/07/2018)

[v] To give just one example, according to one estimate, between 2000 and 2004 in the US smoking caused more than $193 billion in annual health-related costs, including smoking-attributable medical costs and productivity losses (cited in David Rosen ‘Socialize Costs, Privatize Profits,’ Counterpunch, March 1st, 2013, available at https://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/01/socialize-costs-privatize-profits/  (Accessed 09/07/2018) ).

[vi] See Ha-Joon Chang (2007) “Bad Samaritans. The Guilty Secrets of Rich Nations & The Threat to Global Prosperity,” chap. 2.

[vii] Chang (2010), pp. 55-67.

[viii] See Ha-Joon Chang (2010) “23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism,” pp. 199-200.

[ix] Chang (2007), p. 55.

[x] Laura D’Andrea Tyson (1992) ‘Who’s Bashing Whom?: Trade Conflict in High-Technology Industries,’ p. 90.

[xi] Winfried Ruigrock and Rob Van Tulder (1995) ‘The Logic of International Restructuring,’

  1. 220-21, quoted in quoted in Michael M’Gehee ‘Free Market Capitalism and the Pentagon System,’ Znet March 30, 2010, available at https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/free-market-capitalism-and-the-pentagon-system-by-donald-m-ferguson/ Note that this may not be the correct authorship of the article as the url attributes it to a Donald M. Ferguson.

[xii] Mariana Mazzucato (2013 [2018]) “The Myth of the Entrepreneurial State. Debunking Private vs Public Sector Myths,” p. 6.

[xiii] Mazzucato (2013 [2018]), p. 81 DARPA is also often referred to as ARPA, dropping the ‘Defense’.

[xiv] Mazzucato (2013 [2018]), p. 82

[xv] Elizabeth Corcoran, “Computing’s controversial patron,” Science, April 2, 1993, p. 20, retrieved from http://www.flagrancy.net/salvage/SiliconSubsidies.pdf  (07/07/2018)

[xvi] Corcoran, op. cit.

[xvii] Mazzucato (2013 [2018]), p. 84

[xviii] Andrew Pollack, “America’s Answer to Japan’s MITI,” New York Times, March 5, 1989, section 3, p. 1, quoted in M’Gehee (2010).

[xix] Pollack, op. cit.

[xx] Mazzucato (2013 [2018]), pp. 85-86.

[xxi] Mazzucato (2013 [2018]), pp. 87-88. Mazzucato notes that, as the act allows multiple versions of effectively the same drug to be designated ‘orphan’, Big Pharma has been able to clean up at public expense. She cites a drug developed by Novartis for chronic myelogenous leukaemia that, when marketed as a treatment for four other conditions, received the same designation (and support) each time.

[xxii] Johnson described his work in an article entitled ‘Touch display—a novel input/output device for computers,’ published in Electronics Letters. For more of the history, see Florence Ion, ‘From touch displays to the Surface: A brief history of touchscreen technology,’ ARSTechnica 4th April 2013, available at https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/04/from-touch-displays-to-the-surface-a-brief-history-of-touchscreen-technology/ (Accessed 12/07/2018).

[xxiii] SRI International, ‘SIRI’ undated, available at https://www.sri.com/work/timeline-innovation/timeline.php?timeline=computing-digital#!&innovation=siri (Accessed 10/07/2018).

[xxiv] Mazzucato (2013 [2018]), p. 6, chap. 5.

[xxv] Scott Carey, ‘How the UK government supports technology start-ups | How to get government backing for your start-up,’ techworld, 11th January, 2017, available at https://www.techworld.com/startups/ravn-ai-startup-helping-automate-legal-work-3652689/ (accessed 08/07/2018).

[xxvi] Katie Collins, ‘AI, 5G, driverless cars on the government’s tech agenda,’ Cnet, 22nd November 2017, available at https://www.cnet.com/uk/news/ai-5g-driverless-cars-uk-government-tech-investment-budget/ (accessed 08/07/2018).

[xxvii] Daniel Cichocki ‘Impatient for growth? Time to unlock Patient Capital…’ UK Finance, 27th November 2017, available at https://www.ukfinance.org.uk/impatient-for-growth-time-to-unlock-patient-capital/ (accessed 11/07/2018).

[xxviii] K&L Gates Public Policy and Law Practice ‘Government Contracts and Procurement,’ 2011, available at http://www.klgates.com/files/upload/Public_Policy_Govt_Contracts.pdf (accessed 13/07/2018).

[xxix] ‘Shall we have Airplanes?’ Fortune, January 1948, quoted in M’Gehee (2010).

[xxx] Tyson (1992), p. 88.

[xxxi] Kerry Young ‘Federal Government Emerges as Top Health Buyer in New Analysis,’ Commonwealth Fund, 5th December 2016, available at https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/newsletter/2016/dec/federal-government-emerges-top-health-buyer-new-analysis (Accessed 13/07/2018).

[xxxii] Stephen Broadberry and Tim Leunig (2013) ‘The impact of Government policies on UK manufacturing since 1945. Future of Manufacturing Evidence Paper 2’, Foresight Government Office for Science, pp. 28-30, available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/277158/ep2-government-policy-since-1945.pdf (Accessed 10/07/2018)

[xxxiii] Broadberry and Leunig (2018) op. cit.

[xxxiv] Broadberry and Leunig (2018) op. cit. Note that authors cite other experts who question the decisive role the scheme may have had. However, as the other factors they cite as perhaps being more important (‘Britain’s strong record in biomedical research at university level, the early introduction of efficacy regulation and the role of the NHS’) are all examples of public sector support or intervention, this does not detract from my argument.

[xxxv] Broadberry and Leunig (2018), p. 4.

[xxxvi] Ibid, p. 30.

[xxxvii] Erick Schonfeld ‘Silicon Valley Buzz: Apple Paid More Than $200 Million For Siri To Get Into Mobile Search,’ Techbuzz 28th April, 2010, available at https://techcrunch.com/2010/04/28/apple-siri-200-million/ (accessed 12/07/2018); Note that an argument can be made to justify this, as it was by Norman Winarsky of SRI in an interview in 2010. ‘When I put it to him that $150 million was a lot for taxpayers to spend on a technology that’s now been taken inside Apple, he corrected my premise on several counts, arguing that acquisitions are a natural outcome of SRI’s spinoff process. “I think the Bayh-Dole Act is one of the most brilliant acts in the history of Congress,” Winarsky says. “What you call ‘taking the technology inside’ has been responsible in large part for the creation of companies like Intel, Cisco, Apple, and Sun. The government would have had to pay billions of dollars, perhaps, to continue to advance this technology, while instead the commercial marketplace is making it available to everybody. Consumer revenue is what drives future products, rather than our taxes.”’ This argument still does not address the loss made by the state and, even assuming Apple went on to spend ‘billions’ developing SIRI, it has made billions selling it. Plus, it has invested its billions much later down the line when the state has turned the uncertainty into manageable risk. Wade Roush ‘The Story of Siri, from Birth at SRI to Acquisition by Apple—Virtual Personal Assistants Go Mobile,’ Xconomy 14th June 2010, available at https://www.xconomy.com/san-francisco/2010/06/14/the-story-of-siri-from-birth-at-sri-to-acquisition-by-apple-virtual-personal-assistants-go-mobile/

[xxxviii] Rosen (2013) op. cit.

[xxxix] (Shapiro 2012) cited in Mazzucato (2013 [2018]), p. 185.

[xl] John Battelle ‘The Birth of Google,’ Wired 8th January 2005, available at https://www.wired.com/2005/08/battelle/ (accessed 11/07/2018)

[xli] See Joel Bakan (2004) ‘The Corporation. The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power,’ Chap. 2.

Costly Delusions

Last Friday’s failed ‘bucket bomb’ has produced yet more one-eyed coverage of Islamic terrorism and roiled the cauldron of social media. Islam, the crazed 7th Century death cult bent on universal domination,™ has struck again. Now, I carry no more brief for the fairy tales of Mohammed than I do for those of the followers of the Carpenter of Nazareth. Nevertheless, I don’t accept the general charge that Islam is a religion evil above all others. Nor, despite my own atheism, can I join wholeheartedly in the savaging of Islam by ministers of the ‘new atheism’ – such as Sam Harris – who appear to have given up worshipping every god save the Holy American Empire. I also reject the widespread charge, expressed by David Cameron a few years ago, that ‘Isis is a greater and deeper threat to our security than we have known before.’[1] Certainly, I repudiate the accusation that Islam by itself is a sufficient condition to give rise to terrorism.

Simple arithmetic ought to be enough to illustrate the point. The Global Terrorism Database compiled by the  National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) offers itself as the most comprehensive non-classified database of terrorist attacks in the world. It holds details of approximately 170,000 terrorist attacks carried out globally between 1970 and 2016 by all affiliations and creeds (excluding states but that’s a different discussion). During the same period the global Muslim population increased from approximately 700 million to 1.8 billion.[2] I don’t have the demographic skills or inclination to estimate how many unique Muslims have been alive for each year of that period but to round to 1bn seems a reasonable approximation. Let’s assume – wrongly – that each one of those 170,000 terrorist attacks was carried out by a different Muslim, so there have been at 170,000 Muslim terrorists. Dividing those fictional 170,000 Muslim terrorists into our one billion Muslims would mean they comprised just 0.00017% of all Muslims. Put another way, about one in every 5883 Muslims would have committed a terrorist attack. Of course, this calculation wildly exaggerates the number of Islamic terrorists in the world but, even after so doing, the idea that Islam itself causes terrorism is revealed as absurd. If Islam causes terrorism why hasn’t  it turned the other 999,830,000 Muslims into terrorists as well?

Deaths by terrorism in Europe

According to Europol, there were 142 failed, foiled, or completed terror attacks reported in the EU 2016 (in six states). This was down from 211 in 2015 and 226 in 2014. Of those 142 attacks in 2016 99 were carried out by ethno-nationalist and separatist groups. Left-wing extremists carried out 27 attacks, there was one right-wing attack, and two could not be attributed. This means that just 13 were carried out by jihadists (six of which were attributed to Islamic State).[3] These 13 attacks were also the only attacks with a religious motive -90% were secular. It is true that Islamist attacks caused most of the casualties that year but it is still the case that less than 10% of terrorist attacks in the EU in 2016 were carried out by Islamists. This assessment also generalises for previous years – the majority of terrorist attacks have been carried out by ethno-nationalist groups and not by adherents of any religion.[4] On these figures, Islam – and religion generally – are a very poor predictor of terrorism. Perhaps a better predictor of Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe can be deduced from the graph above.

Deaths from terrorism in the US

The most recent whole year figure for terrorist attacks in the US is for 2015 and is calculated by START.[5] There were 61 attacks in the US during that year of which nine (or just under 15%) were committed by Islamic extremists. Another study in 2016 looked at 201 terrorist incidents recorded since 2008, finding that while 63 incidents involved perpetrators ‘espousing a theocratic ideology’ 115 incidents were down to right-wing extremists. In other words, right-wing extremists were behind nearly twice as many terrorist incidents as were associated with Islamists. The Islamists caused 90 deaths while the right-wing extremists killed 79.[6]

To put these deaths in perspective, in 2015 91 Americans died in accidents involving lawnmowers.[7]  In the same year 44,193 killed themselves.[8] Between 2005 and 2015 the number of Americans killed by gun violence was 301,797.[9] Excluding disease, it is Americans who constitute by far the greatest threat to Americans.

There are, of course, hotspots elsewhere in the globe where nearly every terrorist attack is carried out by a Muslim. Perhaps not coincidentally, these often are places like Afghanistan and Iraq – made warzones by the US and UK – where they are fighting occupation.

Well, all suicide bombers are Muslims, aren’t they?

Again, no. In fact, between 1980 and 2004, the world leader in suicide attacks was the Tamil Tigers, a secular Hindu group. Moreover, at least a third of the suicide attacks in predominantly Muslim countries were carried out by secular groups, such as the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in Turkey.[10] The leading authorities in this field, Robert Pape and James K Feldman, studied every one of the 2178 reported suicide attack between 1980 and 2009. They find that,

“Islamic fundamentalism cannot account for the steep upward trajectory of the annual rates of suicide terrorism— from an average of three attacks per year in the 1980s to over 500 in 2007—since it is implausible… that the number of Islamic fundamentalists around the globe rose by a similar astronomical rate (over 16,000%). Further, the geographic concentration also casts doubt on the causal force of Islamic fundamentalism. If religious fanaticism or any ideology was driving the threat, we would expect a spread of more or less proportionately scattered attacks around the globe or, in the case of Islamic fundamentalism, at least spread randomly across the 1.4 billion Muslims who live in nearly every country in the world. However, we are observing nearly the opposite of random, scattered attacks that would fit the pattern of a “global jihad,” but instead tightly focused campaigns of suicide terrorism that are limited in space and time and so would appear related to specific circumstances.”[11]

Pape and Feldman also note that Islam cannot explain why important suicide terrorist campaigns in recent years have ended. For example, since Israeli combat forces left Lebanon in 2000 there had not been a single Lebanese suicide terrorist attack by the time Pape and Feldman published in 2010; not evening during Hezbollah’s war with Israel in 2006. Yet Hezbollah remained an Islamic fundamentalist group throughout that decade.[12] The bottom line, as they put it, is that it is military occupation, not Islam, that drives suicide bombing.

Well, even if Muslims aren’t all terrorists, they certainly all support terrorists, don’t they?

No.

Some of the most detailed and reliable work on opinion polling is done by the US-based Pew Research Centre. They found in 2013 that ‘Muslims around the world strongly reject violence in the name of Islam.’ Roughly 75% of Muslims reject suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilians. And in most countries the prevailing view is that such acts are never justified as a means of defending Islam from its enemies.[13]

In the US, a 2011 survey found that 86% of Muslims say such tactics are rarely or never justified. An additional 7% say suicide bombings are sometimes justified and just 1% say they are often justified.[14] A 2009 study by the WorldPublicOpinion.org Network of public opinion in predominantly Muslim countries reported that ‘very large majorities continue to renounce the use of attacks on civilians as a means of pursuing political goals’. This was despite respondents supporting the goal of groups like al Qaeda to expel US forces from all Muslim countries and approving of attacks on US troops in Muslim countries.[15] Of course, there are Muslims with reprehensible views and there is stronger support in some countries for terrorism including against civilians (40% in Palestine and 39% in Afghanistan according to the Pew study) but several Muslim nations have been under western attack for decades. A hardening of attitudes should be expected. What matters is that being of the Islamic faith is not, by itself, a reliable predictor of attitudes to – or participation in – terrorist acts. So long as we continue to delude ourselves as to the complexity of the reasons behind terrorism, we are throwing more bodies on the pyre.

Notes.

_________

 

[1] David Cameron  “Threat level from international terrorism raised: PM press statement,” 29th August 2014, available at https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/threat-level-from-international-terrorism-raised-pm-press-conference

[2] To derive this figure, I have taken two estimates from H. Kettani, “World Muslim Population: 1950 – 2020,” International Journal of Environmental Science and Development (IJESD), Vol. 1, No. 2, June 2010 ( http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=300C9E31537245BA23E3D381C6B7C642?doi=10.1.1.180.3753&rep=rep1&type=pdf )and http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/05/christians-remain-worlds-largest-religious-group-but-they-are-declining-in-europe/

[3] Europol “EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report 2017”, pp. 11 & 49. The report notes that completely accurate figures are difficult to establish as the UK does not provide disaggregated data.

[4] Europol “TE-SAT 2014: EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report,” available at https://www.europol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/europol_te_sat_2014_reflowable_v150%20%281%29.epub

[5] American Deaths in Terrorist Attacks, 2016 http://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_AmericanTerrorismDeaths_FactSheet_Sept2016.pdf

[6] Mythili Sampathkumar “Majority of terrorists who have attacked America are not Muslim, new study finds,” Independent 23rd June 2017, available at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/terrorism-right-wing-america-muslims-islam-white-supremacists-study-a7805831.html

[7]  Deaths in 2015 with ICD10 code W28 (Contact with powered lawnmower). Data from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. Underlying Cause of Death 1999-2015 on CDC WONDER Online Database, released December, 2016. Data are from the Multiple Cause of Death Files, 1999-2015, as compiled from data provided by the 57 vital statistics jurisdictions through the Vital Statistics Cooperative Program. Accessed at http://wonder.cdc.gov/ucd-icd10.html

[8] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

[9] Linda Qiu “Fact-checking a comparison of gun deaths and terrorism deaths,” 5th October 2015, available at   http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/05/viral-image/fact-checking-comparison-gun-deaths-and-terrorism-/

[10] Robert A. Pape, James K. Feldman (2010) “Cutting the Fuse, The Explosion of Global Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It,” p. 20. See also Pape’s 2004 study, “Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism”

[11] Ibid. pp. 38-39.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Pew Research Centre “The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society,” 30th April 2013, available at  http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/#extremism-widely-rejected

[14] Ibid. “Appendix A: U.S. Muslims — Views on Religion and Society in a Global Context,” available at  http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-app-a/

[15] WorldPublicOpinion.org “Muslim Publics Oppose Al Qaeda’s Terrorism, But Agree With Its Goal of Driving US Forces Out,” 24th February 2009, available from http://worldpublicopinion.net/muslim-publics-oppose-al-qaedas-terrorism-but-agree-with-its-goal-of-driving-us-forces-out/  Two polls conducted in 2006 by Pew and Terror Free Tomorrow reported that ‘Strong opposition to terrorism was found among Muslims in seven out of ten countries polled by Pew. This is especially true in the Muslim populations of Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey, where six in ten or more say that “suicide bombings and other forms of violence against civilian targets” are “never justified.” The TFT poll of Indonesia and Pakistan found even bigger numbers rejecting all attacks on civilians. Pew also found complete rejection of terrorism among very large majorities of Muslims living in Germany, Britain, Spain and France. Trend line data available for some countries also show a significant increase in those taking this position in Indonesia and a remarkable 23 point increase in Pakistan. Only Turkey showed a slight downward movement.’ (WorldPublicOpinion.org “Large and Growing Numbers of Muslims Reject Terrorism, Bin Laden,” 30th June 2006, available at http://worldpublicopinion.net/large-and-growing-numbers-of-muslims-reject-terrorism-bin-laden/ )

In Flight from Peace

It’s an unspoken assumption of mainstream political commentary in the US and UK that ‘we’ mean well. We might be naïve, idealistic, bungling, or occasionally foolish but, a few rotten apples aside, the ‘we’ nations are fundamentally benign. Official enemies, on the other hand, are always up to something, have selfish, ulterior motives and are generally bad eggs.

These two assumptions frame intellectual and media debate. When ‘enemy’ states act, such as Russia in Syria, their public statements are evaluated according to their actions and their blandishments about freedom, democracy, self-defence, and bringing stability are not taken at face value. Strategic interests are evaluated and motives deduced. This is as it should be. When the US and UK ‘intervene’ the blandishments are taken at face value, strategic interests are absent (or couched in simple terms of defence) and our actions are interpreted and, if necessary, sifted to fit with the blandishments. Words are the sole prerequisite for demonstrating intent. Imagine for a moment a BBC journalist reporting that the British or American government’s real motive in a given conflict was to exacerbate it for selfish reasons. It’s almost inconceivable. We are assumed always to desire peace and stability and toseek strenuously to avoid conflict.

I’d like to illustrate the falsity of this assumption with a handful of examples of Anglo-American interventions in the past thirty years: Iraq in 1990, Kosovo in 1999, Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq (again) in 2002, and North Korea today. I hope these examples will demonstrate that the US and its lackey, far from being in pursuit of peace, often make strenuous attempts to avoid it.

On 2nd August 1990, long-standing US and UK ally, Saddam Hussein, ordered Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. Within two days Iraq had fully annexed the small country and the world was in uproar. When Saddam realised his miscalculation, that the US would not permit the annexation, he made several attempts at a negotiated withdrawal. Ten days after the invasion, he proposed a settlement linking Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait to withdrawals from other illegally occupied Arab lands: Syria from Lebanon and Israel from the territories it conquered in 1967.[1] As the New York Times reported,

President Saddam Hussein of Iraq suggested that he might withdraw his forces from Kuwait if Israel first withdrew from the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip and if Syria pulled its soldiers out of Lebanon. Washington and Israel dismissed such a deal.[2]

A few days later Iraq made another offer, described by one official who specialised in Middle East affairs as ‘serious’ and ‘negotiable’, to withdraw from Kuwait and allow foreigners to return in exchange for sanctions being lifted, guaranteed access to the Persian Gulf, and sole control of the Rumailah oil field, which extends two miles under Kuwait. Significantly, it made no mention of the previous precondition that the US pull its troops out of Saudi Arabia.[3] The proposal again received little response.

In December that year, Iraq made another proposal to exit Kuwait in exchange for a US commitment not to attack its soldiers as they withdrew. They also asked for foreign troops to leave the region, for an agreement on the Palestinian issue, and a ban on all WMD in the region (a goal formally adopted a year later in Security Council Resolution 687). US officials described the offer as ‘interesting’ and signalling ‘Iraqi interest in a negotiated settlement.’ A State Department Mideast expert described the proposal as a ‘serious prenegotiation position.’ The demand for an Israeli withdrawal from the Occupied Territories was dropped and it was made clear that a deal over Palestine was not a precondition for Iraq’s withdrawal. The White House, as Newsday reported, ‘immediately dismissed the proposal’.[4]

Were the offers genuine? Was it justifiable to give Iraq any sort of concession for withdrawing? We’ll never have an answer to the first question but, for the second, it seems clear that while Saddam was looking for a way to withdraw while saving face, the US appeared bent on backing him into a corner. One might argue that invaders should not be negotiated with, that they should never gain one iota from their criminality but that was not the US (or Israeli) position, then or now.

Iraq’s peaceful withdrawal might well have happened without a further shot being fired. It seems, however, that the US Government was intent on making war happen, presumably seeing the crisis as an opportunity to consolidate its hold on the region. Why else did Pentagon officials claim, in an allegation later disproved but never retracted, that satellite images (which were never provided) showed Iraq had massed 250,000 troops and 1,500 tanks on the Saudi border?[5] A diplomatic solution, particularly with UN involvement, would have undercut US prestige and delegitimised future US military interventionism. Instead rejectionism and falsification to fight peace.

In 1999, at the Rambouillet Conference, the US again acted to forestall the possibility of a peaceful resolution; this time to the Kosovo War. It did so by adding conditions to the text of the  proposed Rambouillet Agreement that were calculated to be unacceptable to the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). Annex B of the proposed ‘peace treaty’ included a Status of Forces Agreement, which required that NATO forces ‘under all circumstances and at all times, shall be immune from the Parties’ [i.e. FRY], jurisdiction in respect of any civil, administrative, criminal, or disciplinary offenses which may be committed by them in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’ and would ‘enjoy, together with their vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and equipment, free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the FRY including associated airspace and territorial waters.’[6] Note that this applied not merely to Kosovo but that NATO was demanding absolute, unfettered reign in the entirety of the FRY.[7]

In other extraordinary provisions, NATO insisted that ‘the economy of Kosovo shall function on free market principles’ and that state assets be privatised. No less extraordinary, when this was reported by the Australian journalist, John Pilger, the Guardian’s diplomatic Editor, Ian Black, went so far as to flatly deny that this first passage existed at all.[8] The reader may verify this for themselves.[9] As Michael Parenti put it, the ‘agreement’ was not an agreement at all but an ‘ultimatum for unconditional surrender’.[10] This was conceded later by the second most senior British defence minister during the conflict, Lord Gilbert, in testimony to Parliament:

I think certain people were spoiling for a fight in NATO at that time. I think the terms put to Milosevic at Rambouillet were absolutely intolerable: how could he possibly accept them? It was quite deliberate.[11]

Henry Kissinger – never one to let a war go unmongered – judged that the Rambouillet text was ‘a provocation, an excuse to start bombing,’ while James Rubin (then Assistant US Secretary of State for Public Affairs) conceded in 2000 that the US’s ‘internal goal was not to get a peace agreement at Rambouillet.’[12]  The combination of the unacceptable demands of access and immunity coupled with the remarkable inclusion, in a supposed peace treaty, of US demands about how the Kosovan economy was to operate, is perhaps best explained by John Norris, former communications director for the then US deputy Secretary of State, Strobe Talbott:

It was Yugoslavia’s resistance to the broader trends of political and economic reform – not the plight of the Kosovar Albanians – that best explains NATO’s war.[13]

The US justified their invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 on the grounds that the Taliban had refused to hand over Osama bin Laden, whom they suspected of involvement in the September 11th atrocity.  Yet in fact the Taliban made several offers to extradite bin Laden; their mistake was to ask the US to provide evidence. The Independent reported at the time,

[Afghanistan’s Deputy Prime Minister Haji Abdul Kabir] said: “If America were to step back from the current policy, then we could negotiate.” Mr bin Laden could be handed over to a third country for trial, he said. “We could discuss which third country.”

But… Washington rejected the Taliban offer out of hand. “When I said no negotiations I meant no negotiations,” Mr Bush said. “We know he’s guilty. Turn him over. There’s no need to discuss innocence or guilt.”[14]

In fact, the US had demanded bin Laden’s extradition for several years but had always refused to provide evidence -generally held to be a normal component of an extradition request. The offers culminated in a proposal in October 2001, reported by the Daily Telegraph, when a delegation from Pakistan, led by Qazi Hussain Ahmadn (leader of Pakistan’s Jamaat-i-Islami party) went to Afghanistan to negotiate with the head of the Taliban, Mullah Omar:

Omar agreed that bin Laden should be taken to Pakistan, where he would be held under house arrest in Peshawar. The proposal, which had bin Laden’s approval, was that within the framework of Islamic shar’ia law evidence of his alleged involvement in the American attacks would be placed before an international tribunal.

The court would decide whether to try him on the spot or hand him over to America.[15]

This deal was reportedly blocked by the then dictator of Pakistan (and off-and-on US client) General Pervez Musharraf. One doesn’t need to read between the lines much:

Gen Musharraf and Wendy Chamberlain, America’s ambassador to Pakistan, were told of the mission in advance and yesterday Qazi met the Pakistani president to relay the proposal.

“He was told that, while he backed the idea, the stumbling block was that he could not guarantee bin Laden’s safety”…’.[16]

Could the Taliban have been trusted? Would they have handed bin Laden over? We can’t know for certain because the avenue was closed off. Even if one does accept (and I do not) the proposition that it is acceptable to bomb a country when its government refuses to hand over a suspect, it is even more outlandish to suggest that no evidence need be laid as part of a strenuous effort to avoid violence. The US made no such effort.  As with Iraq in 2003, war was not ‘the last resort’.[17]

I won’t unearth the complex tale of US and UK machinations that led in 2003 to our second major attack on Iraq. The inspections were a failed attempt to give the imprimatur of due process to a calculated act of aggression, betrayed by the obvious frustration shown by US and UK officials every time inspectors failed to find any proscribed weapons. Nor is there space to discuss in detail Iraq’s last minute, desperate offers to avert an invasion, which included allowing in thousands of US troops to look for weapons and an offer to hold internationally-monitored elections.[18] It’s enough to draw attention to three matters to further illustrate my argument.

Firstly, during 2002 – before the invasion-proper – the US and UK intensified their decade-long bombing of Iraq, in order to ‘put pressure on the regime’ and provoke the Iraqi government into action that would justify war. Regime change being a crime in international law it was necessary to do something that would ‘create the conditions in which [Britain] could legally support military action.’ [19]

Secondly, in March 2003, as a supposed compromise, the British attack dog proposed six requirements that Iraq would have to satisfy in order to avert war.  One was to commit to ‘surrender all mobile bio-production laboratories for destruction’ – a demand with which Iraq could never have complied because it never had any. Another demand, which was either inexcusably inept or monstrously cynical was,

A public statement by Saddam Hussein, broadcast in Iraq, admitting possession of weapons of mass destruction, stating his regime has decided to give them up and pledging to cooperate with UN weapon inspectors.[20]

Of course, there are some who say that the invasion was never about WMD (they are correct) but instead was about removing Saddam Hussein (they are wrong). On the eve of the invasion the BBC reported,

President George W Bush’s spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said allied troops were going to enter Iraq “no matter what”.

“If Saddam were to leave, American forces, coalition forces, would still enter Iraq – hopefully they would then be able to enter peacefully because the Iraqi army would not have been given orders to fire on them, and then they could carry out the disarmament of Iraq,”[21]

Iraq was to be invaded one way or another. If a direct casus belli could not be manufactured through bombing then one of several pretexts would do. And obviously cynical attempts at ‘compromise’ -with demands so unreasonable only trained journalists could take them seriously – would be used to provide a veneer of reasonability.

Fast forward to today and the US is threatening North Korea and demanding an end to its nuclear programme but refusing to explore what might be the most straightforward route to achieving this: to accept North Korea’s offer to freeze its nuclear programme. As the New York Times reported only in June,

The Trump administration has come under growing pressure to open negotiations on a temporary freeze on North Korea’s nuclear and missile tests in return for reducing the American military footprint in the Korean Peninsula, according to American officials and foreign diplomats.

Versions of the proposal, floated by Beijing for several months… But White House officials say they are not interested in any proposal that would require the United States to lift military or economic pressure on the North, even in return for a moratorium on tests.[22]

A similar offer, made to the Obama Administration in 2016, was rebuffed on the grounds that it was insincere; the North Koreans would ‘have to do better than that.’[23]

The relationship between the US and N. Korea has always been riddled with mistrust and the latter’s record of compliance has been far from spotless. As Robert Carlin and John W Lewis noted in 2007, the underlying perception in the US has long been, ‘you can’t deal with them’. Yet, as they observed, this neglects a long history of cooperation. ‘Forgotten in the reality that from 1993 to 2000, the U. S. Government had twenty or more issues under discussion with the DPRK in a wide variety of settings. A large percentage of those talks ended in agreements or made substantial progress.’[24]

Yet, on occasions when an agreement has been reached, the US has done something to blow it and the media has compliantly blamed DPRK.  Significant progress in denuclearizing N. Korea had been made by 2005 when the incoming Bush Administration wrecked the deal. As Bruce Cumings recorded in Le Monde Diplomatique,

On September 19, 2005, the United States and the DPRK agreed on certain principles leading to denuclearization, including the US commitment not to attack North Korea. Three days later, the US Treasury Department imposed sanctions on the DPRK, which it accused of engaging in illegal activities with Banco Delta Asia in Macau, China, Cutting the country from the international financial system. It is now known that very few incriminating evidence was included in the US Treasury file, which was intended to torpedo the September negotiations.[25]

There’s a recurring patter to the US and UK’s ‘search for peace’ in the world. Arrogant ultimatums, a refusal to compromise, unreasonable demands calculated to be rejected, and attempts to manufacture justifications. All the while, instead of benevolence, a cynical opportunism that sees every crisis as an opportunity to extend and entrench power. In each case, the only peace sought is that found while strolling through a graveyard of one’s enemies.

________________

Notes.

[1] Editorial, “The issue is still Kuwait,” Financial Times (London), August 13, 1990, p. 12

[2] Michael R. Gordon “Confrontation in the Gulf; Bush orders navy to halt all shipments of Iraq’s oil and almost all its imports,” New York Times 13th August 1990 available at http://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/13/world/confrontation-gulf-bush-orders-navy-halt-all-shipments-iraq-s-oil-almost-all-its.html?pagewanted=all

[3] Knut Royce “Middle East Crisis Secret Offer Iraq Sent Pullout Deal to U.S.; [ALL EDITIONS]” Newsday 29th August 1990, archived copy available at https://www.scribd.com/document/38969813/MIDDLE-EAST-CRISIS-Secret-Offer-Iraq-Sent-Pullout-Deal-to-U-S-ALL-EDITIONS

[4] Knut Royce “Iraq Offers Deal to Quit Kuwait U.S. rejects it, but stays `interested’” 3rd January 1991, archived copy available at https://www.scribd.com/document/38969954/Iraq-Offers-Deal-to-Quit-Kuwait-U-S-rejects-it-but-stays-interested-NASSAU-AND-SUFFOLK-Edition See also PATRICK E. TYLER “Confrontation in the Gulf; Arafat Eases Stand on Kuwait-Palestine Link,” New York Times 3rd January 1991, available at http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/03/world/confrontation-in-the-gulf-arafat-eases-stand-on-kuwait-palestine-link.html

[5] Scott Peterson “In war, some facts less factual,” Christian Science Monitor 6th September 2002. See also John MacArthur (1992) “Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War,” pp. 173.

[6] See “Text of Military Annex to Draft Rambouillet Accords” paras. 6a,b,c, 8 and 9 available at https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmdfence/347/34726.htm

[7] In fact, the text does contain a qualified promise to abide by FRY law in para. 2, which states that ‘…all NATO personnel shall respect the laws applicable in the FRY, whether Federal, Republic, Kosovo, or other, insofar as compliance with those laws is compatible with the entrusted tasks/mandate and shall refrain from activities not compatible with the nature of the Operation.’ However, since the clause begins by stating that this is  ‘without prejudice to their privileges and immunities under this Appendix,’ the promise is almost meaningless.

[8] Ian Black rubbished Pilger’s claims, stating: “In an earlier version of his thesis, billed without irony as ‘amazing’ in last week’s New Statesman, Pilger provided more detail. He quoted (correctly) from section 11 of appendix B, about NATO’s use of airports, roads, rails and ports. Inexplicably, he then added the sentence: ‘The economy shall function in accordance with free market principles.’

“Damning stuff that. Proof that Nato really is the military arm of unreconstructed international vampire capitalism. But that sentence does not exist.” (Ian Black “Bad News” Guardian 19th May 1999, available at https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/may/19/balkans9 emphasis mine)

[9] http://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/990123_RambouilletAccord.pdf The relevant passage is Chapter 4, paragraph 1 on page 46.

[10] Michael Parenti (2002) “To Kill a Nation: The Attack on Yugoslavia” p. 112.

[11] Gilbert quoted in Patrick Wintour “War Strategy Ridiculed” Guardian, 21st July 2000 available at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jul/21/balkans1

[12] Henry Kissinger quoted in Ian Bancroft “Serbia’s anniversary is a timely reminder” Guardian 24th March 2009, available at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/mar/24/serbia-kosovo ; James Rubin on the Charlie Rose Show 18th April 2000, transcript and video available at https://charlierose.com/videos/28943

[13] John Norris ( 2005) “Collision Course: NATO, Russia, and Kosovo” p. xxiii. As this is a central contention of the book for which Talbot himself wrote the foreward, I think it’s reasonable to assume it has Talbot’s support.

[14] Andrew Buncombe “Bush rejects Taliban offer to surrender bin Laden,” Independent 14th October 2001 available at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/bush-rejects-taliban-offer-to-surrender-bin-laden-9143208.html

[15] Patrick Bishop “Pakistan blocks bin Laden trial,” Daily Telegraph 4th October 2001 available at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/1358464/Pakistan-blocks-bin-Laden-trial.html

[16] Ibid.

[17] Sir John Chilcot’s damning conclusion at the end of his inquiry was that ‘the UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort.’ http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/the-inquiry/sir-john-chilcots-public-statement/

[18] Julian Borger, Brian Whitaker and Vikram Dodd “Saddam’s desperate offers to stave off war” Guardian 7th November 2003, available at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/nov/07/iraq.brianwhitaker

[19] Michael Smith “The War Before the War” New Statesman 30th May 2005 available at http://www.newstatesman.com/node/195307 Smith article quotes the infamous ‘Downing Street Memo,’ written by civil servant Matthew Rycroft in July 2002, which was minutes of a meeting of  senior British government, defence and intelligence personnel including the head of MI6. The full text can be read here: http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB328/II-Doc14.pdf

[20] Staff and Agencies “Straw spells out key tests for Saddam,” Guardian 12th March 2003 available at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/12/iraq.uk1 1

[21] BBC News “Saddam rejects Bush ultimatum” 18th March 2003, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2861029.stm

[22] David E. Sanger and  Gardiner Harris  “U.S. Pressed to Pursue Deal to Freeze North Korea Missile Tests,” New York Times 21st June 2017 available at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/21/world/asia/north-korea-missle-tests.html

[23] Associated Press “Obama rejects North Korea’s nuclear offer: ‘You’ll have to do better than that’” Guardian 24th April 2016 available at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/24/obama-response-north-korea-nuclear-tests-deal

[24] Robert Carlin and John W Lewis (2008) “Negotiating with North Korea 1992-2007” available at http://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Negotiating_with_North_Korea_1992-2007.pdf

[25] Bruce Cumings “Et la Corée du Nord redevint fréquentable” Le Monde Diplomate October 2007, available at https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2007/10/CUMINGS/15210 I have relied on Google Translate for the English version.