Of Planks And Specs
by Alan Marston

A growing anti-war movement found its feet in the past week, when thousands
of peace protesters in New Zealand, Italy and India called for an end to
the bombing of Afghanistan.
I've a feeling this movement will grow, and its
prime moving force is an instinctive understanding of what Jesus said as
quoted by Matthew 5:21-22 `Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your
brother's eye with never a thought for the great plank in your own?' I
interrpret Jesus' statement as saying that hate is fuelled by the very
thing in oneself that we accuse in others. Specifically, is not the US
State a practitioner and supporter of state terrorism? Is it not obvious
that the response by the US Government to the Sept 11 attack is one of
exploiting that attack and the emotions around it to further the interests
of the US geo-politic of global rule? I think such questions are
rhetorical, and so do millions of people throughout the world. The
hypocracy of the US politicians and military is only exceeded by that of
Israeli politicians and military in their cynical role as policeman of the
middle east oil reserves.

The charge of "anti-Americanism" levelled agains protestors is itself
profoundly anti-American. If the US does not stand for freedom of thought
and speech, for diversity and dissent, then we have been deceived as to the
nature of the national project. Were the founding fathers to congregate
today to discuss the principles enshrined in their declaration of
independence, they would be denounced as "anti-American" and investigated
as potential terrorists. Anti-American means today precisely what
un-American meant in the 1950s. It is an instrument of dismissal, a means
of excluding your critics from rational discourse.

Under the new McCarthyism, and the clear and present danger of Bushism this
dismissal extends to anyone who seeks to promulgate a version of events
other than that sanctioned by the US government. On September 20, President
Bush told us that "this is the fight of all who believe in progress and
pluralism, tolerance and freedom". Two weeks later, his secretary of state,
Colin Powell, met the Emir of Qatar to request that progress, pluralism,
tolerance and freedom be suppressed. Al-Jazeera is one of the few
independent television stations in the Middle East, whose popularity is the
result of its uncommon regard for freedom of speech. It is also the only
station permitted to operate freely in Kabul. Powell's request that it be
squashed was a pre-emptive strike against freedom, which, he hoped, would
prevent the world from seeing what was really happening once the bombing
began. US military `intelligence' agencies have been given the OK to spend
millions on buying satellite photos of independent news agencies, so as to
prevent pictures of the results of US bombing `getting out'.

Both George Bush and Tony Blair have sought to prevent al-Jazeera from
airing video statements by Bin Laden, on the grounds of the preposterous
schoolboy intrigue that they "might contain coded messages". Over the
weekend the government sought to persuade British broadcasters to restrict
their coverage of the war. Blair's spin doctors warned: "You can't trust
them [the Taliban] in any way, shape, or form." While true, this applies
with equal force to the techniques employed by Downing Street. When
Alastair Campbell starts briefing journalists about "Spin Laden", it's a
case of the tarantula spinning against the money spider.

If we are to preserve the progress, pluralism, tolerance and freedom which
President Bush claims to be defending, then we must question everything we
see and hear. Though we know that governments lie to us in wartime, most
people seem to believe that this universal rule applies to every conflict
except the current one.

Most people, but fewer every day are prepared to ignore the plank and focus
on the speck.