Aimee Howarth brings you an interview with The Yorker directors on the final day of the advent articles
Aimee Howarth speaks to YUSU's sabbatical officers about their Christmas Day routine for day 17 of the advent calendar
For the final time this term, Vicky Morris updates you on this weeks film news
50 years after the publication of 'James and the Giant Peach', the works of Roald Dahl continue to celebrate success.
It is often taken for granted that the UK and the US support not only democracy, but human rights around the world. But upon closer inspection, does this hold up? The Yorker investigates.
Ex-President Suharto of Indonesia, considered one of the worst human rights abusers in the 20th century, died in January this year. After rising to power through a coup d'état in 1965, he killed between 500,000 and 1 million people in a regime which went on to have one of the worst human rights records of the 20th century. Part of that list is the invasion of East Timor in 1975, which accounts for the deaths of 200,000 to 250,000. His rule was based on the slaughter of opposition and sustained on fear, until protests eventually toppled him in 1998, over 30 years later.
The major news channels reported on the estimated deaths and on the repressive nature of his regime, but what was often forgotten was the US involvement in his rise to power. It was the US who provided him with a list of ‘suspected communists’, before the 1965 killings, knowing what would follow, and it was the US who also gave him the green light to invade East Timor. On top of supplying weapons, the US provided military training for the Indonesian army, who employed what they had learned in this training on anyone who dared to challenge Suharto’s rule.
The UK has no guilt-free conscience either. Margaret Thatcher described Suharto as “one of our very best and most valuable friends”, a sentiment echoed by US Presidents who described him as “our kind of guy”.
And despite the fact that the UN Security Council voted unanimously to stop the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, it was blocked by the US from imposing any sanctions, mostly so they could continue supplying Suharto with weapons, reaping the profits off the destruction he caused.
Margaret Thatcher described Suharto as “one of our very best and most valuable friends”, a sentiment echoed by US Presidents who described him as “our kind of guy”.
But what is the reason for the support of one of the worst dictators in history? Under Suharto, Indonesia had become a ‘paradise for investors’, and as Nixon put it (just two years after the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people), “With it’s 100 million people and its 300-mile arc of islands containing the region’s richest hoard of natural resources, Indonesia is the greatest prize in South-East Asia”.
This is not a one-off case. There are many similar instances of the US and UK government supporting the subversion of democratic regimes.
In 1971, the UK gave Idi Amin direct support in his ascension to power, and looked on as he killed an estimated 300,000 people. The previous President, Milton Obote, had wanted to nationalize certain UK businesses so that Uganda could grow its economy and sustain itself. However, the UK once more put business over people and was not only complicit, but directly involved in another of the most notorious mass murders in history.
The US supported coup in Chile, led by General Pinochet in 1973, ousted democratically elected leader Salvador Allende, and went on to kill tens of thousands of people, torturing thousands more, while untold numbers of political opponents simply ‘disappeared’.
The common factor in each of these cases is a UK or US backed coup d'état, ousting a democratically elected leader, replaced by a brutal dictator who introduces a free market economy, while killing off opponents.
But perhaps this is no longer relevant because it happened over thirty years ago? Maybe we’re more ‘civilised’ now? The facts, however, tell a different story, as there has been continued support for such dictators since World War II until the present day.
After the end of the Second World War, Britain was actively involved in trying to suppress the revolts of its colonies, mostly by killing and torturing opponents. Perhaps the worst dictators of the 1960s were Saddam Hussein and Suharto, and in the 1970s, Amin and Pinochet, all supported by Britain or the USA.
In the 1980s, the British and Americans turned to financially supporting certain rebel or governmental terrorist groups such as the contras in Nicaragua (where the people had just overthrown the US supported Somoza dictatorship and replaced it with a democratic regime) and in Cambodia (under Pol Pot who killed between one and two million people). They also implemented bombing campaigns in Lebanon, Grenada, Libya and Iran.
The 1990s saw a decline in military dictatorships, but there were bombing campaigns in Iraq, Kuwait, Panama, Somalia and Bosnia.
From the year 2000 there has been no shortage of similar intentional human rights abuses. While the most cited cases are the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the bombings of Yemen and Pakistan are less reported, with troops moved into many other countries, protecting, usually, commercial interests. And in 2002 the US supported a coup in Venezuela, though it failed and Chavez returned to power within 48 hours.
UK and US foreign policy therefore seems to favour their own interests over even the lives of other people. The spread of ‘democracy’ has been hindered, not helped, by their efforts since the Second World War; most of the dictators mentioned replaced democratically elected leaders.
Such human rights abuses are well known to groups like Amnesty International, or to intellectuals like Noam Chomsky. But when British and American business interests are so well fulfilled, it seems neither government seems to care. Not forgetting that Britain used to have one of the biggest empires, forged, of course, on the enslavement of millions and, in competition with other European powers, the suppression of most of the world.
Both the US and the UK have built their riches on the backs of those they oppressed, and we, who enjoy those riches, can afford our luxuries so easily, because they were bought so cheaply. Perhaps, however, the recent credit crunch will allow us to shift our priorities a little. Perhaps we will consider that while spending over £35 billion bailing out banks in the country, less than a quarter of that would have eradicated the world poverty the UK and US helped to produce. Maybe this will shed light on the reasons why many people, from those very countries we oppressed, risk their lives trying to cross borders into our countries.
And perhaps now there is a chance to look at the contribution of the UK and US in the world, and ask whether it was worth it? Will the American and British legacies be based on the atrocities of previous and current governments? Or will these countries finally recognise the rights of others, regardless of their race, colour or wealth?
Such choices will determine the course of the next decade, deciding whether or not it will be filled with similar fights over resources and the human rights abuses which follow. But it will also reflect our own nature as citizens of countries who privately destroy the ideologies it publically professes.
Whether we put more value in money or people will determine what our own legacy will be and whether we are citizens ignorant of human rights abuses, or the generation who finally holds our governments accountable for their involvement in past and present atrocities.
Someone's obviously read a lot of Chomsky recently.
Yeeeeeeeeeeah let's all hate the USA and UK because we are all so cool and hate our country!!!
I forgot the days when we gassed our own people, failed to liberate Europe from Nazi tyranny, failed to remove murderous dictators, presided over domestic civil-war and genocide and carried out public executions, as well as force people what to wear and say in public.
Them were the days indeed.
In the naturalistic worldview that is taught in our schools and is so prevalent in our society, we have all evolved from pond scum. From this worldview people can logically justify such acts of evil, they are simply giving survival of the fittest a helping hand (eugenics).
As this article puts it:
"Hence Stalin’s belief that killing millions of people was no worse than mowing your lawn (grass is our cousin in evolutionary doctrine)."
#2 I assume your post is an attempt at irony (though obviously a confused one as we certainly have had public executions and civil wars in our history and have failed to remove numerous dictators). Please read this article properly and then read through your own comment again.
Note that the article does not say "The UK and US have never done anything right or worthwhile", instead it merely points out some of the atrocities that they have committed and/or been complicit in. Saying "we've done some good things too" is no defence at all, it's the sort of excuse a child would make.
This article does not instruct anyone to hate the USA or UK, rather it asks that we look at them from a less jaundiced viewpoint for once and judge them by the same standards as we judge other nations. If we do we will certainly find them wanting.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report