zondag 12 maart 2023

20 years on, memories of the Iraq war may have faded, but it shaped the diminished UK we know today

 



Opinion

20 years on, memories of the Iraq war may have faded, but it shaped the diminished UK we know today

John Harris

That politics is a dark art is a cliche, but the events of 2003 helped to destroy public trust in government

P

olitics is in the midst of a New Labour revival. Keir Starmer draws huge inspiration from his party’s landslide win back in 1997. Tony Blair offers him advice, and regularly tours TV and radio studios. Gordon Brown has found a role as British politics’ thundering conscience. That former titan of “comms” Alastair Campbell is now a super-successful podcaster and caller-out of Brexit lies; over the past few days, he has been hyperactively defending Gary Lineker and decrying the management of the BBC. There is even something of New Labour in Rishi Sunak: his faux-classless speaking style, and his attempts to sell himself as a master of technocratic efficiency, determined to pull his party back into the mainstream.

But now, an uneasy anniversary arrives. Next Monday will mark 20 years since the invasion of Iraq: a reminder not just of Blair et al’s responsibility for the greatest political and humanitarian disaster the UK had been involved in since the second world war, but a moment when the supposed political centre ground suddenly lurched somewhere reckless and catastrophic. Support for the invasion, let us not forget, also enveloped the Conservative party, and the vast majority of the British press. In that sense, the anniversary is a vivid reminder of the perils of groupthink, and the grim results of squeezing complex realities into simple narratives.

In a deeply scarred, crisis-prone Iraq – and the wider region – people still live with the consequences as a matter of everyday experience. Here, by contrast, most of us have the awful luxury of thinking of the war as a distant, fading set of events. Only last week, a columnist in the Financial Times mused that “within the western world, the Iraq war has left little trace”, and that the invasion “didn’t shake politics”. But an episode as significant as this was always going to have profound effects on the UK, thanks to the war’s sheer disastrousness, and the fact that the case for our involvement soon turned out to have had no basis in fact. The result was a crisis of public trust that festers on.

There was an early sense of this in February 2003, when more than a million people arrived in London to demonstrate their opposition to a war that felt more likely by the hour. Pick through reports that day, and one thing in particular burns through: a sense that politics and power had lurched away from the public, and left a huge and very uneasy gap. Quotes to that effect were gathered by the dozen: “Something’s happened recently, to me and so many friends – we just know there’s something going wrong in this country. No one’s being consulted”; “This is not about party politics, but a simple feeling that democracy has been forgotten.”

US Marines arrive to help Iraqi civilians pull down a statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad.
US Marines arrive to help Iraqi civilians pull down a statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad, 2003. Photograph: Sean Smith/The Guardian

Less than a month after the invasion began, the Iraqi capital apparently fell to US forces, and millions of us were told once again that we were simply wrong. But anyone who remembers the war will be familiar with what happened next: endless violence, huge levels of death, the horrors perpetrated by US personnel at the Abu Ghraib prison, and so much more. Then, in October 2004, the most breathtaking news of all was coughed out. 

The BBC put it succinctly: “Iraq had no stockpiles of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons before last year’s US-led invasion, the chief US weapons inspector has concluded.”

In 2005, Blair won an election with the support of less than a quarter of the electorate, and Labour’s Commons majority fell from 167 seats to 66. “There is little doubt that historians will look back on the 2005 election as the Iraq election,” said the Guardian. When the SNP defeated Labour in the Scottish elections of 2007 and that country’s politics underwent a watershed change – just as Blair stepped down – it happened partly because the SNP’s then leader, Alex Salmond, had successfully tapped into huge anger about the war, baldly accusing Blair of lying (as one academic study put it, “voter problems with Westminster were responsible, with some dissatisfaction with the performance and leadership of the UK government and also with the issue of Iraq”).

The financial crash came a year later, followed by further proof that politics was now in an unstable and volatile state: 2010 saw the flurry of support for the Liberal Democrats known as “Cleggmania”, and the election of a hung parliament. And then came a run of seismic shifts: the rise of Ukip, the Scottish independence referendum of 2014 and the election as Labour leader of Jeremy Corbyn – whose reputation for a supposedly righteous kind of politics was rooted in his opposition to the Iraq adventure. The right was speeding down the isolationist and parochial road that led to Brexit, while the left embraced the kind of ideas that Blair had always warned against. Whatever political story I was covering during this period, I heard the same refrains from voters: bitter verdicts on his time in office, and dismissals of politicians as liars. Iraq was hardly the sole reason for this, but it was always present and correct.

The idea of politics as a mendacious trade is an ancient cliche, but in this instance, people were not wrong. Next week’s anniversary, in fact, ought to serve as a reminder of the three deceptions so central to the politics of the war, and the public disaffection they triggered. It was hardly a revelation, but the 2016 Chilcot report confirmed it: Blair and his aides presented weak and patchy intelligence as authoritative evidence of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. He repeatedly assured the country that no decision about whether or not to go to war had been taken, but his assurance to Bush in July 2002 that “I will be with you, whatever” suggested that his mind had long since been made up.

Then, as the invasion loomed and the UN security council considered its options, Blair said that “the French position is that France will vote no, whatever the circumstances”, whereas President Jacques Chirac had said something very different: that UN weapons inspectors needed to be given more time, and if Iraq did not cooperate, “regrettably, the war would become inevitable. [But it] isn’t today.”

Our memory of these deceptions may have faded, but their effects ripple on. Iraq hideously sullied Blair and Brown’s domestic record and marked the end of the New Labour vision of Britain as a young, confident country. It reduced the fantasies of “liberal interventionism” to ash, and deepened the disaffection and unease that would lead to our exit from Europe.

For the people now in charge of the two main Westminster parties, there may be comfort in the idea that we might somehow return to being the comparatively quiet, orderly, outward-facing nation we were 20 years ago. But there is no going back there, and the horrors and political contortions of the war are one of the key reasons why.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My comments : 

1.   Did the western invasion in Iraq - 20 year's ago by now - not have something to do with the ME born Yinon plan, (1982) in combination with the USA neo-conservative neo-colonial Project for the New American Century (1997), to just place the history of that era in a somewhat broader context, both geographically and (geo) politically.

2.  Had not the four-star USA general Wesly Clark mentioned the intention of the then american government - which he had been informed about by some of his colleges at the Pentagon ten days after 9/11 (*) - to invade seven Muslim countries in five years.

3.  I am not telling anything new, as I would remind the people of a strong popular voice at the time, that did point to Bush jr. and Blair (hard core LFI member and lavishly supported financially by staunch Israel-promotor Michael Levy) as politicians, that should at least have been subjected, to the autority of an international war tribunal, preferably on the (supposedly) impartial auspicien of a UN body.



‘Een klein detail’ van Palestijnse Adania Shibli gaat over verstikkende angst en al dat verdwenen is

 





BoekrecensiesRoman

‘Een klein detail’ van Palestijnse Adania Shibli gaat over verstikkende angst en al dat verdwenen is

De Palestijnse Adania Shibli schrijft op hallucinante wijze over het leven in Ramallah en de Negev-woestijn, nu en vijftig jaar geleden.

Lieke Kézér

In augustus 1949 stuiten Israëlische soldaten in de Negev-woestijn op een groep bedoeïenen. Ze vermoorden de mannen en nemen een jong meisje mee naar hun kamp waar ze haar dagenlang verkrachten voor ze haar doodschieten. Het bevel kwam van de officier, hoofdpersoon in het eerste deel van de novelle Een klein detail van Adania Shibli.

In krachtig en realistisch proza beschrijft ze zijn bewegingen die dagen, waarbij ze zich vooral richt op de eentonigheid van zijn handelingen, de herhaling, hoe hij zich wast, schone kleren aantrekt, hoe hij de spinnen uit zijn tent verwijdert en op patrouille gaat, dag na dag, schijnbaar emotieloos. Het voelt claustrofobisch, om zo dicht op de huid van die dood­enge officier te zitten, nee, zelfs ónder zijn huid, als hij ’s nachts gebeten wordt door onzichtbaar ongedierte. Het gif vreet zich door zijn ingewanden en de wond op zijn been begint te etteren.

Opluchting van korte duur

En dan, goddank, het tweede deel, het voelt als een verademing om die nachtmerrieachtige woestijn te verlaten. Shibli verplaatst haar verhaal naar het heden, naar Ramallah, naar een jonge Palestijnse vrouw in bezet gebied. Natuurlijk is de opluchting van korte duur, geweerschoten en bombardementen, de gillende sirenes van ziekenwagens en de noodsignalen van militaire patrouilles zijn hier onderdeel van de omgevingsgeluiden, de beklemming vliegt je binnen een paar zinnen alweer naar de strot. Als de vrouw, die net als de officier anoniem blijft, naar haar werk loopt staan er soldaten voor de ingang die hun geweer op haar richten, eenmaal aan haar bureau komt een collega binnenrennen om het raam open te zetten zodat het glas niet versplintert, een naburig kantoorgebouw wordt opge­blazen.

Hoe het is om in bezet gebied te leven, de dagelijkse ­realiteit, wat er stukgaat als je waardigheid met voeten wordt getreden, dat beschrijft Shibli, die geboren werd in Palestina, promoveerde aan de University of East Londen en woont in Berlijn en ­Jeruzalem. Veelzeggend is dat het niet het bombardement zelf is dat de vrouw van haar stuk brengt, maar het stof dat door het open raam naar binnen waait, dat tussen haar papieren gaat zitten. Haar toewijding aan haar werk is geen uiting van haar liefde voor het leven dat de bezetter probeert te verwoesten, zo benadrukt ze, ze is gewoon niet meer in staat dingen rationeel te benaderen. ‘Alles wat ik kan doen zonder dat het funeste gevolgen heeft, is naar kantoor gaan, of in mijn huis aan mijn tafel voor het grote raam zitten.’

Gevaarlijke tocht

Haar verhaal komt samen met dat van de officier als ze een artikel leest over het vermoorde meisje. Het is een klein detail dat haar aandacht trekt: de moord vond plaats op de ochtend waarop zij, precies een kwart­eeuw later, werd geboren. In een poging de waarheid te achterhalen, onderneemt ze een gevaarlijke tocht over verboden terrein naar de plaats van het misdrijf, en bezoekt ze de musea en archieven waar het incident gedocumenteerd zou moeten zijn. Het verleden haalt hier het heden in. De wegen zijn vol verwoesting, maar zo weinig herinnert haar aan vroeger, niet alleen de waarheid over het meisje is weggevaagd, ook de geschiedenis van dit gebied, de routekaarten die ze bij zich heeft, laten de angstaanjagende realiteit zien van al dat verdwenen is. Het is een reis waarin de ene paniekaanval de andere opvolgt, verstikkend is die angst.

Het is het ritme van Shibli’s woorden dat ervoor zorgt dat je blijft lezen, de hallucinante sfeer van haar verhaal, en de hoop, natuurlijk de hoop, dat alles op magische wijze toch nog ten goede keert, ook al weet je eigenlijk wel beter.

null Beeld

Adania Shibli
Een klein detail

https://www.trouw.nl/tijdgeest/een-klein-detail-van-palestijnse-adania-shibli-gaat-over-verstikkende-angst-en-al-dat-verdwenen-is~b5b48c77/