Movement for the Abolition of War

David Miliband rewrites history

“Among the calamities of war may be jointly numbered the diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which interests dictate and credulity encourages.” Samuel Johnson

One would have thought the public had heard enough of history being rewritten to suit politicians when Tony Blair appeared at the Iraq Inquiry and, among other things, pushed the old, discredited conflation of Al Qaeda, 9/11 and Iraq. Presumably he still thinks that if he utters an untruth often enough people will believe him.

But now, the UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband is rewriting the history of Britain’s involvement in Afghanistan, both in the media and at public meetings. On 5 February he appeared at a meeting in Taunton, Somerset, UK, there to answer the public’s questions on “Why we are in Afghanistan”.

From the start he stated that the Government believes that Afghanistan is, in their pet phrase of the moment, the “incubator of choice” for terrorism. Who invents these idiot words? More to the point, why do they think this kind of phrase will have any credibility with the public? Whether in his introduction or his answers, he constantly came out with versions on the Government’s attempt to persuade us that Al Qaeda and the Taliban are pretty much the same enemy; that unless we destroy the Taliban we will be under threat from Al Qaeda. “9/11 was planned in Afghanistan.” “The Taliban were responsible for 9/11.” “The 9/11 attack came from Afghanistan.” Such statements peppered his answers.

On the last parroting of this “truth” I lost my patience. Sitting in the front row (it was after all my question he carefully wasn’t answering at the time, about the physical and mental damage both to Afghan civilians and our own Forces), I interrupted his flow to say, “No, they were Saudis”, the point being that there were no Taliban, no Afghans, come to that no Pakistanis or Iraqis, among the alleged hijackers. They were largely Saudi. Disconcerted, he said, “Well, I know Osama was brought up in Saudi, but…” implying that bin Laden had spent the rest of his life in what Miliband calls the “badlands”, those tribal territories that Britain drove a border through back in 1893 (the Durand Line). Miliband’s version of Britain’s long troubled history with Afghanistan was “we controlled Afghanistan from India”. No. Mostly we got tossed out, sometimes terribly so, as in the retreat from Kabul in 1842, when over 16,000 lives were lost.

In fact, in February 2002 Robert Mueller, director of the FBI, was stating that Malaysia, Germany and the UAE as well as Pakistan and Afghanistan were places where the planning of 9/11 occurred, something that has now resurfaced, due to the arrest in Malaysia of 7 students, supposedly connected to the attempted Christmas Day “underpants bomb” on the Detroit-bound plane. But we didn’t invade or bomb those other countries, which demonstrates how very selective governments are with facts when it comes to justifying their actions.

Worse was to come. Speaking of the Afghan elections and the fraud and vote rigging involved, Miliband commented that we simply cannot expect the same “Western” standards of democracy from countries such as Afghanistan. But even so, he added, “the Afghans have got a Government that they elected”. Omitted was the fact that the Afghans have had an American shoo-in (Hamid Karzai) thrust upon them, with no fraud-free opportunity to vote for any other president. Forget the fact that in April 2002, Zahir Shar, the last King of Afghanistan, returned home from exile, their king who in 1963 gave Afghanistan a new constitution, making it a modern democratic state, introducing free elections, a parliament, civil rights, liberation for women and universal suffrage. He had served the Afghans well; they trusted him and there were open calls for a return to the monarchy. But when he came to open the Loya Jirga in June, he was publicly forced to step aside at America’s request, as it was clear that many members of the Loya Jirga were preparing to vote for him, rather than America’s man Karzai. Two (badly marred by fraud) elections later all they have, still, is Karzai.

Is none of this rewriting history? Then consider this. Miliband stated that we are in Afghanistan because of terrorist threats to our own country, but could list only four events to place against the years of terrible destruction and death in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan caused by the West. He cited 9/11 and the loss of 3,000 lives. Do those who use 9/11 as the base for their “war on terror” ever mention that Americans shoot each other to the tune of over 11,000 deaths each year? He cited Britain’s 7/7, which was not planned in Afghanistan, nor carried out by Al Qaeda or the Taliban, but by young men born and raised in Britain. He added Al Qaeda’s attack on the US embassy in Jordan. Then he spoke of the Madrid bomb which, he reminded us, took place when “Spain was not in Iraq”.

Spain not in Iraq when Madrid was bombed? Here is proof of how evil Al Qaeda is, that it should attack an innocent country. Facts? No and no. Prime Minister Aznar, despite the Spanish vociferously opposing the invasion of Iraq, supported the US – led invasion and sent 1,300 troops to Iraq, in April 2003. The Madrid bombing took place on 11 March 2004, only three days before Spain’s general election. Aznar’s government was criticised for trying to blame ETA for the carnage. The Spanish took their revenge. Right-wing Aznar was swiftly replaced by left-wing Zapatero, who was sworn in on 17 April. Just one day later he fulfilled a campaign pledge and ordered the withdrawal of the Spanish troops. The last combat troops had left Iraq by 26 April, although it took another month for the Spanish logistics team to remove all their equipment. Mr Miliband, please note: the Spanish were still in Iraq at the time of the Madrid bomb. Nor did the Spanish investigation unearth any involvement by Al Qaeda, although they did conclude the Muslim cell responsible was probably “inspired” by Al Qaeda.

Despite the Government’s efforts to justify why we are in Afghanistan, the public remains unconvinced. Whether the questions came from people working in race relations, school pupils, those with religious affiliations, or simply concerned citizens, none of the questions put to Miliband appeared to be supportive of our presence in Afghanistan. Certainly, none of his answers really told us why we were there. He just repeated the Government line that, unless we destroy the nest of vipers in Afghanistan we will be killed on our own streets. Put crudely, bomb them before they bomb us. Never, since Tony Blair involved Britain in Bush’s war on terror, has the Government been prepared to look at the possibility that our arrogant and damaging behaviour in other people’s countries creates anger, enemies and ultimately, “terrorists”.

One person raised the Palestine/Israel issue as being central to peace in the Middle East, and spoke of the public’s perceived “double standards” of our Government. Miliband’s answer - “We strongly support a two-state solution”. That would perhaps be more believable if the UK Government, indeed the EU as a whole, accorded the Palestinians the same favourable trading agreements as Israel, not to mention some genuine action to force an end to the blockade of Gaza. After all, if we are so happy to interfere in other nations, why not there?

Someone raised the issue of the arms trade. “We are against the arms trade”, he said, neatly sidestepping the fact that as we both manufacture and sell arms, we are part of that trade. Had he forgotten BAE, our major manufacturer (of armaments or anything else) which, having been accused of several counts of bribery and corruption, has just agreed a sizeable out-of court settlement? Did he forget that in May 2008 the UK Government tried to exempt its own cluster munitions from a treaty designed to achieve a total ban on those appalling weapons?

As one of the school pupils said in a TV interview afterwards, “He didn’t really answer any of our questions.”

Before the meeting I asked a friend if he had a question for the Foreign Secretary. “No,” he said, “except perhaps to ask him if he wants a banana.” David Miliband however travels with his own supply of banana skins.