1950s, while those who opposed the Suez war were damned as appeasers. But there have been a string of others, from Ho Chi Minh to Gaddafi, Milošević to Mullah Omar. All were compared to Hitler while British or US bombs rained down on their countries. Just how devalued this currency has become was on show this week, when the Tory historian Andrew Roberts argued that the Iraqi regime should be equated with the Nazis because both had ‘gassed their racial and political enemies’, and because Iraq fires at British and US aircraft patrolling the illegal no-fly zones over its territory.
It would be tempting to put these latest invocations of the second world war down to ignorance, if it wasn’t that those making them clearly know better. What they are in fact engaged in is a crude attempt to rewrite twentieth-century European history to justify a war of aggression in the Middle East. The parallel between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Nazi Germany is transparently ridiculous. In the late 1930s, Hitler’s Germany was the world’s second largest industrial economy and commanded its most powerful military machine. It openly espoused an ideology of territorial expansion, had annexed the Rhineland, Austria and Czechoslovakia in rapid succession and posed a direct threat to its neighbours. It would go on to enslave most of Europe and carry out an industrial genocide unparallelled in human history.
Iraq is, by contrast, a broken-backed developing country, with a single-commodity economy and a devastated infrastructure, which doesn’t even control all its own territory and has posed no credible threat to its neighbours, let alone Britain or the US, for more than a decade. Whatever residual chemical or biological weapons Iraq may retain, they are clearly no deterrent; its armed forces have been massively weakened and face the most powerful military force in history – Iraq’s military spending is estimated to be about 1 per cent of the US’s $380 billion budget. The attempt to equate the Iraqis’ horrific gas attacks on Kurds and Iranians during the Iran–Iraq war with the Nazi Holocaust is particularly grotesque. A better analogy would be the British gassing of Iraqi Kurds in the 1920s, or the US use of chemical weapons in Vietnam.
Appeasement is in any case a misnomer for the attempt by right-wing governments in Britain and France in the 1930s to befriend Germany and accommodate Nazi expansion. There was certainly a widespread yearning for peace in the aftermath of the butchery of the first world war. But the appeasers were something else: effectively a pro-German fifth column at the heart of the conservative elite, who warmed to Hitler’s militant anti-communism and sought to encourage him to turn on the Soviet Union. Chamberlain even hoped for an alliance with Nazi Germany. Fascist sympathies were rampant throughout the establishment, from Edward VIII to newspapers like the Mail which now denounce opponents of war on Iraq as traitors – while mavericks like Churchill and what would now be called the hard left resisted the Munich sell-out. In none of this is there the remotest analogy with current efforts to prevent an unprovoked attack on sanctions-drained Iraq. And of course none of the opponents of appeasement in the 1930s ever argued for pre-emptive war on Nazi Germany, but for deterrence and self-defence.
Just as absurd, against the background of the European–US standoff, is the increasingly strident insistence of the war party that it was the US which saved Europe from Nazi tyranny in the 1940s. It isn’t necessary in any way to minimise the heroism of US soldiers to balk at such a retrospective reworking of the facts. Quite what the Russians are supposed to make of this fable is anyone’s guess, when the Soviet Union lost perhaps 27 million people in the second world war (compared with 135,576 US deaths in Europe), bore the brunt of the European fighting and, in Churchill’s words, ‘tore the guts out of the Nazi war machine’. Particularly when Russia – along with France, Germany and China – is opposing the current war drive and is presumably therefore regarded by war supporters as ranked among the appeasers.
The idea that those opposed to US aggression against Iraq can be compared to the appeasers of the 1930s is simply risible. But if appeasement – unlike the form it took in the 1930s – is regarded as an attempt to pacify a powerful and potentially dangerous power, it sounds far more like the behaviour of Tony Blair’s government towards the Bush administration. Of course, Bush’s America cannot be compared with Nazi Germany: it is far more in the traditional imperial mould. But Britain’s apparent attempt to steer the US away from unilateral action, if that is what it has been, shows every sign of failing. Instead, Blair has lined up behind a hard-right US Republican administration with the political heirs of Mussolini and Franco, in the teeth of British and global opinion – and helped to fracture the US-dominated post-1991 global order into the bargain.
(13/2/03)
A crisis of democracy and the necessity of direct action
If anyone could sell George Bush’s planned war of aggression against Iraq, surely it should be Tony Blair, a politician whose career has been built on his ability to smooth-talk his way out of a crisis. The latest sales drive began with the prime minister’s attempt to link the alleged ricin find above a North London chemist’s shop with ‘weapons of mass destruction’. And it culminated with his imaginative effort to construct a link between ‘rogue states’ such as Iraq and Islamist terrorism.
But all the signs are that his spin offensive simply isn’t working. Such tales may find more of an echo in the United States, where half the population believes Saddam Hussein was responsible for the September 11 attacks, according to some polls. But in Britain – and even more so in the rest of the world – most people are now convinced that the opposite is the case: that the best way to boost support for al-Qaida and Islamist attacks on Western targets is precisely to launch an Anglo-American crusade to invade and occupy Arab, Muslim Iraq.
Not only is public opinion – along with key sections of the civil service, military, churches and trade unions – hardening against the expected war, but the Labour party itself shows signs of risking rupture if that war goes badly. That process will only have been heightened by the announcement yesterday of a ‘preliminary’ decision to accept the US request to use the Fylingdales base in Yorkshire for Bush’s Son of Star Wars missile programme – a move which can confidently be expected to boost the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The same goes for the comments from Bush, the man who will actually make the decision about war, that he is ‘tired’ of Saddam Hussein’s ‘games’ and ‘time is running out’.
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».
Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.
Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.
