Posted on 17-2-2003

Hope is the key
An interview with Tony Benn, by Gill Fry, photo: Jane Brown, Camara Press

Tony Benn, born in London in 1925, the son, grandson and father of Members
of Parliament, retired from the House of Commons in 2001, after fifty years
in Parliament — the longest serving Labour MP in the history of the party.
He was a Cabinet minister in the Wilson and Callaghan governments and was
Chairman of the Labour Party from 1971-2. He is a member of the Transport
and General Workers Union and the National Union of Journalists, and an
honorary member of the National Union of Mineworkers. His published Diaries
in seven volumes cover the period from 1942 to 1990, and the latest volume
Free at Last from 1990 to 2001. He is also the author of seven other books.

The holder of seven honorary Doctorates from British and American
universities, he is a Visiting Professor at the London School of Economics,
a regular broadcaster and recently has been undertaking an immensely
successful lecture tour in the UK. Throughout his career he has
consistently campaigned for peace and justice in the UK and abroad, and is
well-known for his independent and candid views.

Share International: What has been the guiding principle behind your
anti-war stance throughout the years — does it have a religious, social,
humanitarian basis — or all of them?

Tony Benn: I think all of them. I was brought up a Christian, my mother was
a student of the Bible and she taught me that the stories in the Bible were
about conflict between the Kings who had power and the Prophets who
preached righteousness. I was taught to believe in the Prophets, not the
Kings, and it got me in a lot of trouble, but at the same time I think that
is how you should read it. As I get older I think of Jesus as a teacher.
The risen Christ, who was a figure created after the crucifixion, doesn’t
interest me very much, but the teachings of the man when he was alive, so
far as it was reported, seem to me to be relevant and helpful: “Love thy
neighbour as thyself,” and so on. Those principles applied in daily life
give you some indication of what you should and shouldn’t be doing. The
structures of religion with their mullahs, and rabbis and bishops and so
on, I don’t care for very much because I think they are using the teachings
of the Prophets or teachers just to create power structures. Then you get
into a war situation where we are told there’s a crusade, and inevitably
Muslims feel now this is an attack on the Muslim faith by what they
laughingly call the ‘Christian nation’. I can’t say that the United States
strikes me as being particularly Christian.

Then there is the practical element. I lived through the war, during which
I lost a brother and many friends. I was in London during the Blitz and saw
a little bit of war, not as much as many, but enough to make me hate it.

Then I think of war in terms of social justice — what brings about
conflict? It is of course injustice. It’s not the only explanation — there
are gangsters who go to war to gain things for themselves — but in general
violence is created by injustice. Then you ask what is the role of law in
that, and you look and see whether global systems overall might not be
relevant. That’s why I am interested in the Charter of the UN.

Then there is democracy — after all, if we are all children of God why
should we have to wait to go to heaven until that is recognized. If we’re
all brothers and sisters we are entitled to equal rights now. The
combination of all those factors which have a socialist, religious element
shape my opinion.

SI: You have been working for peace all your political career?

TB: I have always been in favour of peace, even as a child in the 1930s,
because I remember the Nazis coming to power. The desire for peace has
always been very strong. When I got into Parliament my first campaigns were
on the anti-colonial movement, trying to bring about independence for the
British colonies. Then I was involved in the first campaign against nuclear
weapons called the Hydrogen Bomb National Petition, which we launched in
the Albert Hall at the end of 1955. Later CND (the Campaign for Nuclear
Disarmament) was formed and I joined that. All my work has been about peace
because war is brutalizing and never solves any problems.

Also, you have to recognize that there are some people for whom war is very
attractive. If you make arms it is marvellous: political leaders who are
weak can strengthen themselves by victories abroad; newspapers boost their
ratings by having lots of picture of our boys in action; and television
companies are engaged in it as well. So you see it isn’t just that everyone
likes peace; most people want peace, but there are people who have a vested
interest in conflict, and so you try and understand why they are doing it,
to help you see how to deal with the problem.

SI: What in your opinion is the root cause of terrorism?

TB: I don’t differentiate between terrorism and war. I can’t see the
difference between a stealth bomber and a suicide bomber. Both are prepared
to take innocent lives for political purposes, and historically the way you
deal with threats of violence is to get to the root of it. You can take
many examples — for instance, Nelson Mandela in South Africa. Mrs Thatcher
called him a terrorist, and indeed he was. I spoke in Trafalgar Square in
1964 at the time of the Rivonia trial, when he was imprisoned for violent
campaigns against the apartheid regime. The next time I met him he had a
Nobel Peace Prize and was President of South Africa.

If you look at Northern Ireland, the talks with Martin McGuiness and Gerry
Adams created the background against which the Belfast Agreement was
reached so I think you have to deal with the cause of it. It is the
violence that is objectionable, not the fact that the violence is conducted
by desperate individual suicide bombers, because violence by the state is
on a much bigger scale. A million people died in Vietnam in which the
Americans were involved. Now, was that terrorism or not? I would have
thought you could argue that it was violence on a scale that made
individual acts of terrorism seem quite small — I’m not justifying either.

So it seems you have to find the roots and negotiate settlements that make
the people not want to go to war. You will never stop the man who is
utterly determined, but you can separate the individual terrorists from the
body of public support they need in order to be successful. And that is the
political response to it.

SI: What do you see as essentials for peace in the world?

TB: There are a number of things. First of all, justice. I don’t think you
can ever have peace between master and servant. Secondly, you have to have
respect for human rights. Thirdly, I think people have to have some feeling
that they have some role in shaping their own future and that they are not
just spectators on the [lives] of kings, presidents, prime ministers and so
on which is on the whole what modern democracies — America, Britain, Europe
— tend to do. They turn people into spectators. Spectators who can be
bought by clever advertising to appear to support [the people] — but once
they’ve granted their support then they’re expected just to sit back for
five years and watch the great and the good they’ve elected governing the
country. That is not democratic in the proper sense, but it’s better than
not being able to get rid of people who govern you. So it’s a very
imperfect democracy: it has no industrial elements, no democracy in the
media or business, and not necessarily much democracy in education. The
conclusion I’ve reached over the years is that democracy is the most
controversial idea. Nobody in power wants democracy. The Pope didn’t want
it: he picks all the cardinals. The Church of England doesn’t have it
because the Prime Minister picks the leader. Stalin didn’t like it. Hitler
didn’t like it, New Labour doesn’t like it. They just want to use an idea
to control.

SI: What is your idea of the requirements of democracy, and how important
is democracy to your political thinking? I suppose democracy is just a word
for something we haven’t achieved yet?

TB: I have tried to define democracy, and worked out five criteria. If you
meet a powerful person, ask them five questions: What power have you got?
Where did you get it from? In whose interest do you exercise it? To whom
are you accountable? How could we get rid of you?

Because if you can’t get rid of the people who have power over you they
don’t have to listen to you. The reason the members of parliament and prime
ministers, with all their defects, have to listen is because the Day of
Judgement comes on polling day, whereas the bankers, the World Trade
Organization, the IMF, the Pope, the mullahs, the rabbis, don’t have to
listen — because they are there. Some of them say they’re there because God
gave them power, others say they are following the inescapable conclusions
of a market-related society. But whatever justification they give they
aren’t accountable and can’t be removed — and I will not be governed by
people I can’t get rid of. For that very reason, people who do have power
don’t like democracy because it will undermine the security they think they
have.

SI: How can we bring about popular participation in government?

TB: They say people are apathetic, but I’m very sceptical about that. I
think that [the idea of] apathy is very convenient to people at the top –
if you can say: “People aren’t interested in politics. I’m not going to
bother them with serious arguments. I’ll pump out my propaganda and they’ll
take it and shut up.” The media think: “If people aren’t interested in
politics I can trivialize and dumb everything down, and sensationalize
because people aren’t interested.” But I think people are not apathetic. I
think a lot of people are very angry because they don’t feel anyone listens
to them and feel that they are treated disrespectfully. They are
distrustful of what they are told and say: “People are just lying to us.”
Therefore their reaction to the political system is not one of:“I don’t
care what happens, go ahead and do it and count me out,” but: “Why am I not
having any role in this?” So the term ‘apathy’ is a funny term to use. It’s
actually an acute dislocation of people’s desire to change things, together
with their feelings that it can be achieved. And yet, outside, there is the
peace movement, the pensioners’ movement, the anti-globalization movement,
the environmental movement — there are masses of movements, but they don’t
get covered on the media.

SI: And they seem to be growing.

TB: Yes, they are growing, and I think that’s part of the reaction to what
I call the decay of the semi-democratic system we have. Of course,
increasingly, as power gets globalized, whoever you vote for won’t
necessarily be able to do much. In a sense now, you elect a prime minister
not to govern the country but to be your shop steward in dealing with the
people who govern the world. Once you get that straight, it makes the
problem a bit clearer.

People at the top do not want to share their power. They’ve always got some
marvellous reason: I’m following my religion; I’m following the laws of
economics. Even Stalin: I’m representing the vanguard of the working class,
so please don’t cause trouble. That is the battle that every generation
has, and yet we mustn’t be pessimistic about it because, in much less
favourable circumstances than we have today, trade unions got themselves
organized. Although the Tolpuddle Martyrs were punished, the chartists won,
the suffragettes won, anti-apartheid won in South Africa. So all you have
to do is study history to see how it’s done and not look for some saviour
who’s going to do it for you.

SI: Do you think world leaders are at a loss as to what to do next?

TB: Yes. I ask myself: how is progress really made? I think of a
caterpillar. The demand for change comes from the back. The back of the
caterpillar pushes, and its back arches. The motive at the front is not to
make progress but is for realism. It’s passion and justice that push the
back and realism that pushes the front of the caterpillar. And then the
caterpillar says we can’t go on like this, we’ll all fall over. Then enough
concessions [are made] to defuse it: leaders of the peace movement, the
trade union movement and the Labour Party are put into the House of Lords
and they co-operate. Then they decapitate the radical movement. They’re
very clever — the establishment wouldn’t have lasted as long as it has if
they didn’t know exactly what they had to do. They have to respond to
pressures, but not too quickly because that would mean giving up things
they didn’t want to give up. They respond to pressure, wait until the
moment they can recover the losses they had to concede, then recapture
them. Then the pressure builds up again. It’s a very interesting process,
and understanding it is very important.

SI: What do you see as the main threat to world peace at the present time?

TB: We live now in a period when the largest and most powerful empire the
world has ever known is in position. The United States has enough military
hardware and technology to obliterate any country militarily, or, for that
matter to destabilize and secure a regime-change in almost any country.
They got rid of Allende in Chile; tried to get rid of Castro and didn’t
succeed; would like to get rid of Chavez in Venezuela; are not very happy
about Lula [in Brazil]; and tried to kill Gaddafi. Frankly, if Mr Blair
were to take a stand against the United States, I would not be surprised if
there wasn’t a slow but persistent desire to replace him as Prime Minister,
through putting him down in the media. Regime-change is for those countries
where you can’t actually find justification for going in and obliterating
it militarily, and that is the greatest danger.

I was born in an Empire in 1925 when 20 per cent of the population of the
world was governed from London and now I live in [Britain] an American
colony. One of the ways colonies can get free themselves is by working with
the progressive forces in the imperial country. We had progressive people
working with Mandela, Nkomo, and many African leaders and helped them to
secure [the transition] peacefully. There’s a tremendously powerful peace
movement in America, and we have to work with them because they have more
direct influence on American opinion. We have to make it absolutely clear
that we will not put up with what Mr Bush wants, but the danger is very
great because the power is so overwhelming and the American capacity to
bully, bribe and blackmail people into going along with their wars is
something you mustn’t underestimate.

The Palestinian situation is also a classic example. Here is Sharon, with
weapons of mass destruction, breaking UN resolutions, armed to the teeth by
the Americans, engaged in joint military and naval exercises in the
Mediterranean with Turkey, Israel and America, and then pretending to be in
favour of a peace process.

SI: What are your thoughts on commercialization and market forces and how
they are impacting on the world?

TB: Multinational companies now aim to run the world, and the United States
has got such strong economic interests that it is prepared to go to war to
safeguard its resources — exactly the same as the British Empire. We
occupied huge chunks of the world because we wanted cheap raw materials.
The multinationals have no loyalty to the United States any more than they
have any loyalty to Britain, but the way they express their interest is by
buying both political parties in America and expecting a pay-off whichever
one wins — and that is totally anti-democratic.

SI: Who are the politicians or statesmen you admire?

TB: I am interested in people who explain the world and people who organize
to improve the world. I’m not looking for a new man on a white horse or a
new Saviour to do it for us. I think there’s something very undemocratic
about putting your confidence in Mr A, or Mrs T, or waiting for a Saviour.

The trade unions have done a great deal to improve the condition of the
working people, and women have organized to improve conditions for women.
I’m not looking for heroes, but Castro and Mandela would both fit that
category — they explained the world and organized to change it. I admired
Willy Brandt very much; he was a remarkable man. There are few people you
meet in life who make an impact, but Willy certainly did.

SI: Do you see the UN playing a crucial role in world affairs?

TB: The UN has really been taken over by the Americans. In the most recent
case, Resolution 1441, calling for Saddam Hussein to reveal his weapons of
mass destruction, Saddam issued a report of 12,000 pages, the Americans
seized it, removed 8,000 pages and gave a sanitized version to the
non-permanent members. The pages removed include details of the American
companies who have supplied weapons of mass destruction to Saddam and all
Kofi Annan said was that it was unfortunate. If the Americans can seize and
censor UN reports they can’t really justify a war based on what’s happened,
because people will say: “We never saw the facts.”

I do believe in the UN, but like Parliament in this country 200 years ago
only 3 per cent of the population had the vote and the power rested with
the landowners … [The UN] has a potentiality but you’d have to elect all
the members of the General Assembly and General Assembly would have to
elect the Security Council, and so on.

SI: Have you ever felt as if you were knocking your head against a brick
wall in your fight for what you believe?

TB: At night when I write my diary I am sometimes sunk in the deepest
gloom. It’s partly psychological — everybody gets depressed, particularly
looking at the world now. On the other hand, you say to yourself that fear
and gloom are prisons in which you imprison yourself. Hope is the key to
the prison door and gives you the energy to try and change it. So hope is
the fuel of progress and fear is a self-imprisonment. You just have to keep
hope alive — it’s the only way anything will be done.

SI: Is humanity making positive developments along the lines you hope for?

TB: With modern technology people know a lot more than they did. People are
beginning to recognize the difference between globalization — the free
movement of capital — and internationalism, where people from other
countries work together.

I think the world’s religions have much to think about. All the religions,
if you cut away the structures, began with teachers teaching how to live
and that provides a common base. If you excavate religions you come to the
same block of granite upon which the whole thing rests. But if you argue
about whether the rabbis are right in saying that God was an estate agent
who gave Palestine to the Jews — well, that’s a difficult argument to deal
with, and absolutely nothing to do with Moses, Jesus and Mohammed. I’m very
interested in theology. I met someone the other day and asked him: “What’s
your religion?” He said: “I’m a lapsed atheist.” I thought that was a
lovely phrase. He said: “I don’t really believe in God but I do think
there’s more in life than just having a nice car, and a home and a video.”
There is a spiritual dimension in life which you can’t disregard, or if you
do you just miss the point in life.

SI: How do you see the direction that the world is going in? Are you
optimistic or pessimistic about the future?

TB: You have to be an optimist. In every stage in history there have been
surges of hope that have overwhelmed the people at the top, who have an
interest in spreading gloom. Remember, the guys at the top don’t want
people to get excited, so they say: “Now just leave it to us, and anyway
you’re apathetic and couldn’t do anything.” I think the most powerful
political phrase in the whole of my life was Mrs Thatcher saying: “There is
no alternative.” What she was saying was: whatever you think, whatever you
do, whatever you organize, you’re bound to fail, don’t even try — and she
did persuade a lot of people not to try. The alternative — “Another world
is possible” — [was the phrase] used at the recent Port Alegre Conference
in Brazil. Of course I am an optimist — you have to try.