‘Dix minutes, douche comprise’. This famous catchphrase, used to describe Jacques Chirac’s daily encounters with his courtesans, has been illustrative of French political culture for decades. With very strict rules on privacy and a nationwide appreciation for ‘the game of seduction’, the sexual liaisons of French leaders have never before been a serious subject of negative public scrutiny. In fact, it seemed that every respectable politician was expected to have a powerful libido.

TEXT: Goos Hofstee
PHOTO: Cody Simms, painting by Banksy

But the culture of ‘seduction’ (i.e. shameless sexism) has left an unpleasant legacy. France remains an unequal, discriminatory macho society, where persistent advances, inappropriate remarks on women’s bodies, and indecent proposals are all common in the workplace, not in the least within the higher strata of (political) society. Historically, the French media have taken a ‘vow of silence’ on these issues when it concerned high ranking politicians, in sharp contrast to American and British political life where private behaviour is considered an indicator of public ethics. While the ins and outs of the ‘private sphere’ of politicians were widely discussed in the better arrondissements of Paris, it was off limits to the press.

The reaction of parts of the media and of the Parisian elite to the arrest of Dominique Strauss-Kahn - charged with sexual assault and attempted rape - is still very much indicative of traditional relations between politicians, press and privacy laws. The forgiving nature of the debate, the nonchalant chuckles and the trivializing attitude would have been rather harmless had it been just another indiscreet (yet consensual) affaire de corps. But the key word here is ‘consensual’. To shrug one’s shoulders at leaders' private indiscretions is one thing, but the way this particular incident has been treated by journalists and the French high society is anything but innocent. 

While the Parisian papers focussed on the fact that DSK was handcuffed on arrest, and appeared hollow eyed and - shock and horror - in slightly grubby clothes, public figures such as (the now disgraced) journalist Jean-François Kahn and the famously self-obsessed philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy have stepped in to defend DSK. These people were calling the charges ridiculous, saying it concerned not attempted rape, but ‘an imprudence… the skirt-lifting of a domestic’. Lévy declared that Strauss-Kahn should not be tried like any other citizen because ‘everybody is not everybody’, and several high ranking Socialists were publicly supporting the most unlikely conspiracy theories. 

The way in which the chambermaid's account has been dismissed, and the buoyance with which her allegations were treated, are an indicative of a culture in which it is very difficult for victims of sexual assault to come forward. In the Nouvel Observateur magazine last week, editor Laurent Joffrin wrote that an ‘indulgence of overly insistent advances, which end up as affronts to the dignity of women, are a French archaism which is broadly spread across all (political) parties and all milieus’. While sexism obviously is not confined to France, it is fair to say that the French (since de Beauvoir) haven’t exactly been firm supporters of the feminist project. The fact that the victim was American might therefore very well have been the only reason that Strauss-Kahn is now in trouble. 

As the inspirational Gisèle Halimi -84 year old women's rights activist and lawyer- declared: ‘if this business had occurred in France, we would have known nothing about it’. In fact, in media circles a lot was already known about the predatory attitude of DSK toward women. As the accounts of Tristane Banon and Aurelie Filipetti clearly show, there was a plethora of evidence regarding serious misbehaviour on DSK’s part. In spite of this awareness, and the multiple allegations against his persona, these stories were brushed off as the whining of overly sensitive women who didn’t get that this was ‘part of the game’. The media never had the courage to investigate the allegations, even when it concerned someone who most likely would have become the next French president. By continuously depicting Strauss Kahn as nothing more than the stereotypical grand séducteur, the media have consciously disregarded the difference between harmless seduction and the kind of obsessive onslaught and harassment Strauss-Kahn was known for.

While there is something to be said for the distinction between private and public sphere, for respecting privacy and personal life of politicians, the line should simply be drawn at the law. Contrary to what France’s number one ‘moral philosopher’ seems to believe, the laws against sexual assault should apply to every citizen equally, and if that citizen lives a life in the public eye, crimes like these should not be ignored or ridiculed by the media. To describe allegations of attempted rape as a weakness for the ‘pleasures of the flesh’ and ‘lack of resistance to feminine charms’ is nothing but disgraceful. 

As the journalist Christophe Deloire already stated, the French press has for too long refused to live up to its duty to write about these serious issues. Privacy should be trumped, he said, by what George Orwell called ‘common decency’: the simple morality and honesty that rules the lives of most ordinary people.

Recently, we saw in the news, the story of a boy selling his kidney in exchange for an Ipad and Iphone. Widespread practice among the desperately poor for many years: has it spread to the 'average' poor? What can be made of such an evolution? A singular case or prelude to what is coming?

TEXT: Christiaan Wöhle
PHOTO: Leondel

Previously, to survive, people were ready to do almost anything. Pushed to such extremes through intimidation and life-threatening poverty they sold pieces of their own bodies. This in itself was a regretful state of affairs, but which had its purpose: the unaided could help themselves to survive through the black market, even if it was for a limited time. Yet now it seems even those who have no such need are tempted, merely because they desire the toys of the more fortunate, to the extent that they agree to extremely dangerous operations to obtain them. There are of course worse things happening in the world, such as a mother letting her child die of starvation while playing World of Warcraft, and reasoning for selling an organ you need only one of is quite easy to come up with. Thus I turned my interest to an extraordinary tool for researching public opinion and mood: internet forums. And what surprises did await me.

The majority of the people I questioned (the number is 32 out of 50 if someone is wondering) were only shocked by the stupidity of the boy: selling it for a third of the local market price. Consequently they had no problem with the act itself, as one needs only one Kidney, and an Ipad is a “way cool” device. And whereas the remaining eighteen were at first outraged by the idea itself, with most of them I managed to submit hypothetical situations where they would consider doing likewise. Universal was the idea that somehow one should only 'donate' ones organs: be noble and rescue a friend or family member for free...sentiments I do not share, since it amounts to saying one doesn’t care about the death of others as long as one doesn’t know them (and preferably doesn’t see them). In all conversations the question came up: for what price would it be acceptable to you? Not surprisingly, women tended to ask much higher prices ranging from 20,000 euros to 100,000, men from 10,000 to 60,000 (keep in mind that this are us, the 'shallow' rich westerners). Another interesting observation: everyone, with one exception, most in favor of the legal selling of organs were atheists, those most against it religious and literalists. Which explains itself, but I never tire of seeing my views confirmed. Moreover, did this news give ideas to everyone of the possibility of doing the same? (but for a higher price) Yes it did!

Thus almost everyone I spoke with, even those who in principle were against it, ended up considering the boy stupid for accepting such a price, yet the act itself was more something to think about. And myself? I am one of the few who were way outside the average price range for men: for minimum 80,000 nett I would consider it, for 150,000 I would seriously do it. Why? Simply because such a sum would mean never having to work “hard” for the rest of my life, which is (to me) a fair deal, considering the risks of living with one kidney. And what would be your price?

About President Obama’s appearance in the international arena has been spoken quit a lot in the past years. Reason enough to shed some light on the protocol and etiquette that is in place for meetings with the president of the United States. What does the diplomatic protocol subscribe for Obama? What the president does and does not do when visiting foreign states is monitored with eagle eyes. Here are some examples of what might go wrong.

TEXT: Laura Kox
PHOTO: Pete Souza/White House

A lot of (online) media pay attention to the acting of the president in foreign countries. For instance when Obama met King Abdullah in April 2009 at a G20 meeting, there was a controversy because the president seemed to have bowed to deeply for the king. This is supposed to be highly inappropriate for the stature of a president of the United States. When Obama met with King Abdullah in a later meeting, they embraced and had cheek to cheek touch.

Another controversial bow was made towards Emperor Akihito during his visit to Japan in 2009. No other US leader is supposed to have ever done that before. But what is exactly controversial about it is debated, since the emperor has no political status in Japan.

In the UK, the president of the United States has to mention the importance of the relationship between UK and the US. And he is supposed to always refer to ‘United Kingdom’ and not ‘England’, which the president did once in his first visit to London, a slip of the tongue probably. This month the president is expected to head of to Ireland, and here again protocol comes into play. When the president wants to visit Northern Ireland he has to head to London first, since protocol demands that when seeking out other areas of the UK, London should be visited first.

Not only is the president himself being scrutinised for diplomatic mistakes. First Lady Michelle Obama came in the news in autumn last year, because she had shaken the hand of an Indonesian leader, who because of his religion is only allowed to touch family-related women. He shook her hand anyway, though he claimed that she forced the much-discussed handshake upon him.

Etiquette is not only expected from the president. What is allowed, shaking hands, hugging or kissing? And can you take the president for a game of football? Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard for instance, played football with the president during his visit. In the quite unlikely case that you will visit the American president anytime soon: on the website of the US Department of State the protocol for behavioural rules regarding presidential visits is more closely defined. Including FAQ’s for dealing with the president.

‘Laws are like cobwebs, which may catch small flies, but let wasps and hornets fly.’ When the English writer Jonathan Swift wrote this in 1707, he was referring to the age-old truth that the judicial system functions well to catch relatively small offenders, but that it is much harder to prosecute the big ‘bad guys’. They use their connections and diplomatic immunity to stay out of trouble and get away with serious atrocities, even in these days of international Law and the ICC.

TEXT: Goos Hofstee
PHOTO: Marion S. Trikosko

One of the most famous of these powerful criminals is Henry Kissinger, former Nobel Peace Prize winner and real life model for Dr. Strangelove, Peter Seller’s famous portrayal of the evil realist in the likewise named movie. While Strangelove and Kissinger might seem like relics of the Cold War and times past, Kissinger is in fact currently promoting his newest book ‘On China’. It entails Dr. Kissinger’s own shamelessly essentialist interpretation of what constitutes ‘the Chinese philosophy’ and what makes it different from ‘the American philosophy’. The book is, just like the 1994 literary masterpiece ‘Diplomacy’, an obvious attempt to bring his own house in order and burnish his political legacy. And God knows, there is a lot that needs burnishing.

While Kissinger was officially the number two man under Richard Nixon, he has in fact been the primary architect of many of Nixon’s policies in Cambodia, Vietnam, Chile and East-Timor. For instance, Kissinger reportedly persuaded Nixon to expand the Vietnam War with secret strategic bombing of Cambodia and Laos. While the estimated casualties vary between several thousands and hundreds of thousands civilians, the secrecy and non-discriminatory nature of the bombings would surely merit a thorough investigation. But how?

In his book ‘The Trial of Henry Kissinger’, Christopher Hitchens has systematically and convincingly argued why and how Kissinger should be brought to trial for his part in the aforementioned crimes. However, Hitchens also stresses that his indictment is aimed at an entire administration. It is exactly this point that makes the issue legally so complicated.

Getting Kissinger convicted for war crimes might legally be impossible, as trying the entire Johnson or Nixon Administration (or what’s left of it) is hardly possible. Noam Chomsky, who is a renowned critic of US foreign policy, argues: ‘Kissinger observes, correctly, that he was conducting the foreign policy of the US. The US is a powerful state. It follows that its leadership can make mistakes, but it cannot commit crimes in the technical Orwellian sense. Only enemies, or those who are weak and defenceless, can commit crimes in the literal sense. Accordingly, it is inconceivable that there would be an effort to bring Kissinger to trial, and even if it were done, he could correctly plead selective prosecution.’

Kissinger himself is very much aware of this legal loophole, and is able to live a relatively undisturbed life in New York.  The American government is not prepared to take the accusations against the former Secretary of State very seriously, and the official response to the accusations has always been silence. The fact that former president Bush thought it fitting in 2002 to appoint the man- also a powerful international political consultant- as chairman of the 9/11 commission illustrates not only the rather limited mental capabilities of the former President, but also exactly how much Kissinger is still part of the political establishment. For those with dirty hands, being part of this establishment and having friends in high places can make the difference between jail time and a mere public shaming.

 Apart from the old debate about accountability of the state and the personal responsibility of politicians, Kissinger’s case raises the question of what international law should be and what it is supposed to accomplish. Getting the man convicted might be legally impossible, but a court hearing could do more for the international image of America than his actual punishment. Every grown up nation has to acknowledge its own past at some point, as truth commissions have done for some African nations. Bringing Kissinger to trial would give the US the chance to acknowledge the crimes of the past, to come clean on who had been responsible, and finally, to distance itself from those involved.

Throwing Henry Kissinger in jail might be pushing it, but the least we can do is stop falsifying history, stop consulting him on political issues, and stop pretending that Henry Kissinger is an innocent man, a good citizen and a welcome guest.In the words of the Howard Zinn: ’We should hold them up to the world, shame them, and ban them from dinner parties.’


This blog was inspired by an article in Village People.

Bin Laden finally caught, shot in the head and dumped in the sea by U.S. Military, is good news by any account, followed nevertheless by the jubilation of many as if having won a football match. Yet sadly, since the celebration of violent death has never truly been something I could enjoy, my mind quickly concentrated on the obvious situation of widespread Pakistani collaboration with the prominent figure. Though not a surprise itself, the lack of consequence in the news about it seemed baffling to me.

TEXT: Christiaan Wöhle

Indeed, the corruption of Pakistani officials has long since been recognized as a major problem to fighting terrorism. The fact that the Taliban are a former colonial tool of Pakistan complicates things even further, as does the attested sympathy of the local population for the terrorist members, and their “causes”. Even though in the meantime, this country receives vast amounts of mostly U.S. aid. Aid that if taken away would throw the country back in the stone age, in the few places it managed to crawl itself out of it. A poor country in both the material and the moral, that has been proven a true friend of Osama Bin Laden. The concentration of the popular news on the death of the latter is understandable. The general reaction to the place he was discovered however seems to remain weak admissions in the way of variations of “well, it's Pakistan”.

Abbottabad, in the suburbs deep in Pakistani territory, only 50 kilometers from Islamabad, the Capital, retirement haven for ex-military officers and other government officials. It was here that he lived, but not as an ordinary citizen hiding in the crowd. He lived in a mansion surrounded by walls up to eighteen feet high, topped with barbed wire. Eight times the size of most other houses in the area and the only ones always burning their garbage instead of taking it out... Even going so far as giving children, that accidentally got their ball in the former terrorist's courtyard, cash instead of allowing the children to enter and grab the ball. And all this half a mile from the main Pakistan Military Academy, the place where the country's most prominent military leaders come from...How much of an insult to intelligence does one have to allow to accept the obvious lie that the ISI (Inter-Service Intelligence: Pakistani secret service) had no idea?

Pervez Musharraf, former Pakistan President, has always said he didn’t know where Bin Laden was, even though the Prime-Minister was confident enough to publicly state that he was “sure he was not in Pakistan”. Pervez now states that the “ISI must be stupid to hide him in such a prominent place” as sole defense of the current situation: “way too smart to put Bin Laden in such an obvious location but far too clueless to know he was there, smart enough not to do it, dumb enough not to know”.

This while India, democracy and superpower of the region, has shown to be quite willing to cooperate. Wouldn’t it be a nice change: to fight terrorism without working with other terrorists? No longer having to submit to the doctrine of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” would be quite liberating. Lets also not forget India has had, for historic reasons, broad experience in fighting terrorism before it ever became a problem in the West. Why cling on to and address Pakistan instead of India, I have never understood. Is there any doubt Bin Laden would have been found many years ago had Pakistan not been treated as an ally? I think not.

Politics is always a dangerous matter to balance, especially in democracies. For this system has neither the freedom to ignore nor repress dissent without harming the very foundation of its inner mechanics. This leaves it open to bigotry and ignorance, as populists make use of the loophole to gain influence. And when such people take a hold of the religious tendencies it becomes a whole new force altogether, capable of taking whole countries, previously committed to human rights and civilisation, to degrade into the patterns of the Middle Ages.

TEXT: Christiaan Wohle
PHOTO: Daskar

Recently, the Hungarian people have adopted a new constitution of shame, championed by the ruling far-right and, as always on such occasions, the main Christian party. A testimony to their moral bancrupty, that greatly diminishes the power of the constitutional court, destroys the independence of the magistrature, restrains social rights while robbing many of social security and makes use of language nostalgic of Monarchy and Theocracy. It changes the name of, yes one can soon say this, the ‘former’ republic of Hungary, as it seems thereis some reason to use a more authoritarian denomination reminiscent of the times of religious cleansing. This new constitution furthermore opens de facto the door for the illigalisation of homosexuality and abortion, both issues important only to a certain kind of man...

But what else was there to expect? During Viktor Orban's short stay in power, he has already named his own followers to nearly all top positions in the country. He passed a law placing the media, both private and public, under the heels of a single organ whose members are nominated by his party Fidesz. And the role this institution is charged with? None other than making sure that no news organisation publishes either ‘subjective’  or ‘offensive’ material... I will leave those with education to ponder on where, on every occassion, the countries passing this line have tended to end up.

This of course is but the most recent of examples. For the threat of the religious is nothing new, be it nuclear armed mullahs or creationism taught in school. This lethal delusion has been underestimated in Europe as of late: and who can really blame us? Between the American nutjobs and Muslim suicide bombers, in this time of television and Internet, Europe almost seems like an island of peace. Yet whereas the U.S. have a marvelous constitution protecting freedom of expression and a even more wondrous ‘Wall of Seperation’ between church and state, many European countries still have blasphemy as a criminal offence! Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Netherlands (ah yes, look at articles 147 and 429bis everyone) and the UK amongst the most notable (event of note being the UK abolishing nearly all of it's blasphemy laws in 2008), many believe this state of affairs to be of minor consequence: for surely these laws aren't actually used anymore? Right? Wrong again!

Haderer was procecuted for blasphemy in Greece in 2003, Manfred van H. in Germany in 2006, Seppo Lehto in Finland in 2008 and I'm sure nobody has forgotten the Dutch Geert Wilders trials.  Religious meddling in where it does not belong is alive and well, and it somehow always manages to continually make it's stand in opposition to ideas and forces of civilisation: what greater poison is there to democracies? 

Lately, the popular revolts we have seen in Tunesia and Egypt, and are currently witnessing in Lybia, Syria, Yemen and Bahrain, have been dominating the news. The Israel-Palestinian conflict, which up to a few months ago often took center stage in news coverage of the Middle East, has now gone onto the so called backburner. However, Middle East experts are already talking about what these revolutions mean for the Israeli-Palestinian relations.  

TEXT: Goos Hofstee

The overthrowing of long-serving dictators like Ben Ali and Mubarak, and the possible future liberation of Syria from Assad will mean a major shift in the balance of power in the region, and will have far-reaching consequences for the Palestinian struggle. First of all, the fact that long term US allies like Mubarak and Ben Ali have been disposed of means that the US has lost a big part of their power base in the region.  One of the reasons Obama was so slow to acknowledge the right of the Egyptian protesters and kept trying to appease and push for reforms instead of revolution was the fact that Mubarak was (one of the) the US’s lapdog(s) in the region. As long as Mubarak was in power, Egypt would not cause trouble, and the US would be sure of cordial relations between Egypt and Israel. Now that Mubarak has gone, the future of Egyptian-Israeli is uncertain. It is likely that the new Egyptian government will better reflect the will of the people, who have for years been calling for a stronger stance on Israel, a more independent foreign policy and less American influence. The fact that Egypt Air no longer includes Tel Aviv as a destination is illustrative of the new course of Egyptian politics with regard to Israel.
 
The impact of the revolutions in the Middle East on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is partly practical and partly a matter of momentum. The practical side means that the role and the impact of the US in the region has changed, the balance of power has shifted. The US will have to re-evealuate their  policies towards both the Israelis and the Palestinians. Their unfailing support of the Israeli occupation and crimes against humanity will have more severe consequences with regards to their position in the Middle East than before, when they had guaranteed backing of Egypt, one of the most important players in the region.
 
It is harder to lay the finger on the second aspect of the impact of the revolutions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The revolutions have created that vague, elusive, and fleeting thing called “momentum”. Momentum can change things that people thought unchangeable, can shake things up, turn things around, can awake things that have been dormant for years. The biggest threat posed by the Arab revolutions to Israel’s domination of the Palestinians is exactly this momentum. 

Israel’s occupation and continuous settlement, its crimes against the Palestinians have been able to go on as long as the balance of power in the region was clear. But over the past months, a page has turned. Things have happened that only a few months ago, no one thought possible. It has set the eyes of the world on the crimes that have been going on in the region for so long. In the light of these changes, with people struggling for their freedom, our attention should now also shift to the oppression that is still going on in that same region. In a Middle East where the masses, by their own actions on the streets, have captured democratic rights and made democratic values their own, the crimes of the so called only democracy in the region should no longer be without consequence. 

The past weeks, the banking sector caused a controversy with the rewarding of abundant bonuses. Especially in the case of ING, that even though it is still heavily indebted to the Dutch state, rewarded a bonus of 1.25 million euros to an ING top executive. Even though the executive finally did not accept the bonus, the situation caused great annoyance to the parliament and the unions. High bonuses are controversial, because these are thought to support risky behaviour with bankers. And it is this risky behaviour that is thought to be one of the causes of the crisis. 
TEXT: Laura Kox
IMAGE: Pauw en Witteman

Following this controversy, Pauw and Witteman hosted a debate between Boele Staal (chairman of the NVB – Dutch Association of Bankers) and Ronald Plasterk (politician for the Dutch Labour party PvdA). Staal understood that politicians had the right to be upset about the bonuses, because they represent the taxpayers. Still, he worried that the tone of the debate could harm the banking system. He hereby referred especially to the suggestion in parliament to claim back the money.

This debate is the old stanza states versus markets all over again. To what extent is the state allowed to interfere with the financial sector? Actually it is state interference that saved the ING in the first place, and thereby the credibility of the Dutch banking environment as a whole. If the state would not have interfered, this would have been disastrous for the people, but also for the credibility of the Dutch banking environment.

Francis Fukuyama together with Nancy Birdstall already noticed in a recent article that the countries that were most liberal in their financial regulation were hit hardest by the current economic crisis. The financial regulators’ lacking ability in for instance Great Britain and the United States to use their powers in rapidly evolving markets are a case in point in advising to create an effective public sector. Although the original advice of Fukuyama and Birdstall was pointed at developing countries, this does not make it less applicable in developed countries. Even though the public sector in the Netherlands might be way more evolved than those in most developing countries, it should also be given the ability to enforce regulations.

Staal does have a point when he states that the ING has kept itself to the Banking Code that was set up last year and allows a bonus with a maximum of 100 percent of the current salary. And this is exactly what bothers me in this situation. Of course, bankers have the right to keep to their code of banking, but was it the right thing to do under the given circumstances?

And here is the twist for me. As for liberalism, that dictates fear of regulation, the current crisis put pressure on the tendency of non-regulation with regard to, for instance, the reward system for top executives.  Hence the crisis made a regulation such as the Banking Code possible. Staal used the Code as an excuse, defending the intolerable high reward, yet the code just produces a maximum standard. In my opinion the bonus was way too high.. The bankers should not have looked at the code only but also to the circumstances in which it was awarded. Was it not the banking sector that caused the crisis in the first place? And is it not highly unethical to reward high bonuses while the bank is still in government debt? Why should the politicians not have a stringent debate about it? The bank itself should have made another decision in these circumstances to begin with.

I am in favour of forceful intervention in other countries, notably the recent examples of Iraq and Libya. Thus hitting upon the often offended and/or surprised look from my fellow students and other acquaintances, who believe a self-respecting humanitarian cannot possibly be in favour of the mass killings all wars initiate. With this I do not agree, for I am convinced of exactly the opposite: that a humanitarian cannot avoid going to war, that pacifism is a case of moral bankruptcy, and neutrality a case of never wanting to grow up. But with that: let us begin with summarising the “lefties” arguments before I destroy them.

TEXT: Christiaan Wöhle
PHOTO: Joriel “Joz”Jimenez

War creates many innocent victims, including women and children. In the aftermath of often random destruction, chaos will follow suit, creating even more victims. If the war was particularly brutal, constructs vital for the prosperity of a country will need to be rebuild, such as hospitals, schools, roads, sewage, government offices etc. Even worse might be the risk of corruption that, if it takes hold, will damn a population to poverty for decades to come. Furthermore, with what right do external parties intervene in an internal conflict? Infringing upon the sovereignty of another country opens to the door for others to do the same to you (the old “pursue the devil until he turns around when you have nowhere left to hide” argument). And how can the population appreciate the value of something (such as democracy) they haven't fought for?

Well, my dear hypocrite, let me stretch my muscles a bit, as writing space is lacking for taking out my ray gun. For the case when something outrageous goes on in a country, such as genocide or a particularly ruthless regime, the U.N currently has three basic options. Intervention (war), economic sanctions or isolation. I inject that intervention is most often the more moral choice, with some rare exceptions, while someone with the views of the previous paragraph would naturally disagree. This brings us to some concrete examples, that according to me, speak better than abstract argumentation.

The war in Iraq claimed somewhat over 150'000 lives, of which 100'000 civilians[1]. A number anyone in favour of the war must carry and never forget. Yet those same people who would use this number as an argument, are responsible for the economic sanctions that were in place in Iraq and delayed deposing Saddam Hussein. My response to them? How about you remember the million casualties from your sanctions, of which a bit over half were young children[2]? How about you owe up to the fact your way has the Rwanda genocide on its conscience, after giving them every chance possible to finish the job (you don't need to worry any more, they're all dead now)?.  How about you remember most of you were ready to let a dictator bomb “his own” civilians in the thousands in order that you keep your hands clean?

Earlier this month, former secretary of state Colin Powell announced that he would be asking questions as to why the American intelligence agencies failed to inform him, before the invasion, that the testimonies of the major (and pretty much only) source of Iraqi eyewitness intelligence were unreliable. The US’ primary justification for invading Iraq in 2003 was the alleged presence of biochemical labs and WMD’s. The empirical “evidence” for this claim was provided by an Iraqi defector known as “Curveball” (real name Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi). Now, anno 2011, Curveball has admitted that he made everything up.
TEXT: Goos Hofstee
IMAGE: David Levene

That it was very unlikely that Saddam had any WMDs was clear long before the invasion. The fact that Curveball’s confession is another nail in the coffin of the legitimacy of the war is therefore not that interesting. Far more revealing about this episode is how it illustrates the systematic manufacturing of the case for war, by parts of the American Administration and Intelligence agencies.

While George Tenet (head of CIA  between 1997 and 2004) states he didn’t know that Curveball was unreliable until two years after the invasion, this is of course an outright lie. It might have been true that Powell was not personally briefed about Curveball’s unsuitability as witness, but it is completely impossible that both CIA and DIA were unaware of this. Both the German Intelligence (BND) and former foreign minister Joschka Fischer have already declared that they had passed on their own intel that proved Curveball’s unreliability to their American counterparts. Moreover, Tyler Drumheller, head of CIA Europe had also warned Tenet on several occasions that Curveball’s information should not be used.

In Intelligence circles it is unthinkable to rely on just one source, and cross-checking data is essential. It is also common knowledge that human intelligence coming from defectors is the least reliable sort. The CIA/DIA were very well aware of the fact that their data didn’t add up and that there would be no tangible evidence on which an invasion could be justified. And so they chose to construct this evidence by skilfully manipulating the material, exaggerating incriminating reports, and ignoring contradictory evidence like key data from UN weapon inspectors.

But Tenet is not the only one to blame. The fact that there was no reliable evidence that indicated that Saddam had WMDs had posed a serious problem for the Administration’s hawks that were pushing for war. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Intelligence services were the only ones involved. In view of the close ties between CIA, DIA and the Administration, it is almost certain that people like Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld were aware of the set up. It is through the systematic cooperation of all these people that Congress and the Coalition partners were misled, not by the lies of a single Iraqi defector.

In response to Powell’s questions, those officials involved will no doubt claim they were tragically misled, that “with today’s knowledge” everything would have been different. The sad fact is however, that these people have no more knowledge today than they had on the eve of war in 2003. It wasn’t a matter of confusing evidence, a lack of knowledge, or of contradictory reports. On the contrary: the picture was pretty clear, and the facts were out in the open for everyone to see. The only question of course, was whether they were willing to look.

“Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive”
Sir Walter Scott.