NORWAY’S MASS-MURDERER: Madman or Fascist Fanatic?

NORWAY’S MASS-MURDERER: Madman or Fascist Fanatic?

By Michael Faulkner – August 05, 2011

The horrific murders perpetrated by Anders Behring Breivik in Oslo and on Otoya island in July,  have left Norway in deep shock and the reaction everywhere has been one of incomprehension of the cold-blooded barbarity with which the massacre was carried out. In attempting to comprehend what could have led someone to unleash a bloodbath such as this, it is tempting to treat it as just another, albeit more horrendous, example of the sort of thing that has occurred all too often in the United States, Britain and elsewhere in recent years: a lone gunman goes on the rampage, shooting as many innocent people as he can until he is either dispatched by armed police or takes his own life. In most such cases those who commit these acts are considered to be deranged people, suffering from severe personality disorders and motivated by deep personal grudges against imagined enemies or against the world in general. They are said to be “madmen” and are often described by the tabloid press as “maniacs”.

The diagnosis has been much the same in the case of the Norwegian killer. In a common sense sort of way it seems unarguable: anyone capable of doing something like this must be mad or deranged. It may be that in many cases such people can properly be considered psychopaths. But too often such simplistic explanations provide a convenient excuse for avoiding serious questions about their motives. Interestingly, certain acts of terrorism resulting in large-scale loss of life, have not generally been regarded as the work of madmen. IRA bombings targeting civilians and the atrocities committed by al-Qaeda, are rightly regarded as politically or ideologically motivated acts. However else he has been described, Osama bin-Laden was not thought to be mad. Neither are the suicide bombers who routinely blow themselves up, killing as many others as possible, in what they perceive to be acts of martyrdom for the cause they believe in.  The lone, rampaging gunman, randomly killing his victims, is thought to be the real maniac.

But it is clear that the Norwegian, Breivik, is a politically motivated fanatic. His views about Muslims and multi-culturalism are shared to one degree or another by countless people throughout Europe and beyond. Much of what he has written in the “manifesto” he posted on the internet just before he went on his killing spree, is the common parlance of right-wing political parties and groups. Such views are to be found daily in much of the British tabloid press, where hostility to immigrants and asylum-seekers is an integral part of the daily diet dished up to the readers. In fact, much to her embarrassment, one British journalist, Daily Mail columnist Melanie Phillips who specializes in this sort of thing, gets a favorable mention in Breivik’s Islamophobic rant. Of course, she and the many others who peddle that brand of anti-immigrant intolerance, cannot be held responsible for the acts of one who carried such intolerance to what he regarded as its necessary conclusion.

Perhaps the best way to understand the mentality of someone who thinks it justifiable – even necessary – to blow up public buildings and shoot down in cold blood scores of innocent young people in what he regards as a noble cause, is to try to establish the connection between his ideological views and the actions to which they led him. His view of the world, shared by many and widely disseminated in the press and on the internet, may loosely be described as apocalyptic. Broadly speaking he sees a world-wide “culture clash” between Islam and Western Civilization (or, in some versions, “Christendom”). Islam, regarded as a benighted, medieval and intolerant religion, is in the process of seeking European and world domination through mass immigration of Muslims into western Europe and the wider “Christian” world, where sooner rather than later there will be a demographic shift which will result in the “Islamization” first of Europe and later the world. In this view, Islam is at war with the west and will stop at nothing to achieve its goal. Unless this relentless drive is halted, it will mean the end of civilization as we know it.

Breivik believes that the “war for the defense of western civilization” has already started, but that “Christendom” hasn’t woken up to the fact. He regards himself as a vanguard warrior in the struggle for survival against the dark forces of evil. His fascination with the myths and paraphernalia of the more romantic brands of European fascism (the Knights Templar;  uniforms and insignia) testify to his obsession with discipline, self-discipline and total commitment to the course he has chosen. Whether he has collaborated with others is actually unimportant. His self-belief and preparedness to act are all that matters.

Some have wondered why it was that, detesting Muslims as he does, he didn’t simply go to a heavily populated Muslim district and open fire on “the enemy”. This misses an important point. He needed to strike at what he regards as the heart of the conspiracy: the Norwegian politicians who have infiltrated the Trojan horse into the fortress. These are the traitors. Those still blind to their treason – the majority of the population – must be made to see the truth and be awakened to the mortal danger they face. This accounts for the target of the Oslo bombing. But what of the mass-murder at the Labour Party youth camp? This was also clearly thought through and far from random. In his view the party of government is a hotbed of traitors to Norway. What better way to destroy this organization than to massacre its youngest and most dedicated members, thus striking terror into the hearts of any young person foolish enough to be hoodwinked into joining the movement. This is the explanation Breivik himself has given. The decision to act, taken on the basis of his conspiracy theory, followed logically from it. Very few of those who think like him would consider taking such a step. His action was that of a true fanatic, but fanatics are not necessarily insane. He seems to believe that if he is given the opportunity to explain himself to the Norwegian people, they will exonerate him and possibly approve his actions. There is no need to say that in this respect he is mistaken.

Breivik’s fanaticism is authentically fascist. His single-minded fanaticism and belief in his “mission” enabled him to commit an atrocity so horrendous that one is almost rendered speechless. But such fanaticism is the hallmark of fascism and in this respect it is instructive to compare his world outlook and his actions with those of Hitler and the Nazis.

Hitler, who has also been regarded by some as mad, believed throughout his life that he was engaged in a titanic struggle against the forces of evil which were hell-bent on subduing Europe and conquering the world – the Jews and Communism - or the “Judeo-Bolshevik Conspiracy”. In the early 1920s, he and his fledging party coined the slogan “Deutschland Erwache” – Germany Awake. The people had to be made aware of the mortal danger they faced from these alien forces which had infiltrated German society and were destroying it from within. Those who disagreed with the Nazi “Weltanschauung” (world outlook), were either fools or traitors. The fools had to be cured of their foolishness and the traitors had to be eliminated. The stakes in this life-or-death struggle were too high to be squeamish about the use of violence. It is worth noting that the Nazis always used the terms “fanatic” and “fanaticism” approvingly when describing their own actions. Such was the fanaticism inculcated into so many young Germans that, by the outbreak of World War Two they were prepared, in the interests of the “ethnic cleansing” of Europe, to kill not only soldiers in combat, but unarmed men, women and children. It was, they believed, in a noble cause. Those they killed were all, including the children, mortal enemies of European civilization and, when the people understood properly what a great service the Nazis were rendering, they would be grateful to them.

The Austrian physician Ella Lingens-Reiner, in her book Prisoners of Fear, (1948) a chilling account of her incarceration in Auschwitz, recounts a conversation she had with an SS officer at the end of 1944. She describes him as “an ardent fanatic”. He tells her that “there is one achievement that will stand, and future generations will thank us for it……we have freed Europe from the Jews for good.”  “What”, she says “could I reply? There was no answer, for we did not speak the same language. He seemed to me completely mad – just as mad as I must have seemed to him because I failed to share his views.”

The “ardent fanatic” at Auschwitz in 1944 is the spiritual father of the fanatic Breivik today. No doubt he regards those who do not share his views or approve his actions as blind or mad. It behooves us all to consider very seriously the connection between his fanatical racist views and his horrific acts. He is fully responsible for what he did and cannot simply be written off as a madman.

GODFATHER MURDOCH – UNFIT AND IMPROPER

“Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world

Like a Colossus, and we petty men

Walk under his huge legs, and peep about

To find ourselves dishonorable graves.”

                                                    Shakespeare. Julius Caesar.

Cassius’s aggrieved complaint against the overweening power of Julius Caesar in ancient Rome, pretty well expresses the sentiments of awe-stricken fear and subservience that until last week gripped so many members of today’s political establishment when confronted by the apparently impregnable power and reach of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire. Whether or not the present scandal turns out to be quite the stuff of a world-shattering Hubris/Nemesis cataclysm, remains to be seen. But there is no doubting the seriousness of the crisis facing the Godfather and his filial lieutenants. Something unimaginable just a few weeks ago is now just foreseeable: could this possibly be the beginning of the end for News Corporation, Murdoch’s multi-billion dollar media empire?

The pace of developments in the last week or so has been astonishing. On July 10, the News of the World, the tabloid Sunday newspaper at the heart of the hacking scandal, with a circulation of 2.6 million, was closed down by News International. This was probably done   in an attempt to take the heat off Rebekah Brooks who had edited the paper in 2002 when a particularly egregious hacking case occurred. A week ago (July 8) it was still assumed that Murdoch’s bid to take over the 61% of BSkyB that he doesn’t already own would be successful. He has now been compelled to withdraw the bid and, given the deepening crisis arising from the hacking scandal in Britain, it is almost impossible to see how it can be revived in the foreseeable future, if at all. The fall-out from the scandal has now reached the United States, with the possibility of an FBI investigation which could turn up evidence of News International journalists attempting to hack into the cell-phones of 9/11 victims. On July 14 summonses were issued compelling Rupert and James Murdoch to attend a session of the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, to answer questions under oath about criminal activities perpetrated by News International journalists, and about attempts to cover up such activities. Rebekah Brooks, who is a UK citizen and was until yesterday chief executive officer of News Corp, will also attend the session. She has just resigned as CEO.

The scale of the hacking scandal at the News of the World has shocked even those inured to the cynical amorality of tabloid journalism. In pursuit of salacious gossip and sensationalism to boost market share, “public interest” is interpreted simply to mean whatever interests readers of the News of the World and the Sun. As layer after layer of subterfuge and concealment has been stripped away in what at last looks like a serious police investigation, the stench of rot emerging from the Murdoch stables has become overpowering. The illegal phone hacking of celebrities and even members of the royal family should come as no surprise; but hacking the cell phone of an abducted child who had already been murdered, and the deletion of messages to enable the hacker to eaves-drop on the messages left by distraught parents and friends, plumbed unimaginable depths of depravity. The same practice was employed against the bereaved relatives of soldiers killed in Afghanistan. It is revelations such as these that finally projected the hacking scandal to the forefront of media attention and turned it from the largely ignored concern of one or two “quality” broadsheets into a national and international sensation.

While it is still too early to be sure, there is reason to believe that this story is unlikely to be wound up quickly, which would enable the lid to be put back on the murky practices that have been revealed. This is because the crisis rocking Murdoch’s media empire does not stop there. It also engulfs the Metropolitan Police and, to an extent, members of the political establishment including the prime minister, David Cameron. Every prime minister since Margaret Thatcher has, to one degree or another, been beholden to Murdoch. Leaders of the Tory and Labour parties, whether in power or in opposition, have deferred to him, sought his endorsement and feared the withdrawal of his favor. His influence over the political establishment has been malign and a serious affront to democracy. The same goes for the relationship between the Murdoch press and the Metropolitan Police. Here, the lid is now being lifted on a rotten brew of corruption. From what has emerged already it is clear that a range of malpractices including bribery on a colossal scale, systematic cover-ups of criminal practices, huge cash payments to buy the silence of victims of phone hacking, collusion in the commission of crimes and deliberate withholding of evidence from the victims of crimes and serious misdemeanors. An earlier police enquiry into allegations of phone-hacking failed to reveal evidence that it was endemic at the News of the World, and simply corroborated the paper’s lies claiming that it was a case of one “rotten apple”. Now things are changing. The sheer volume of evidence and the growing numbers of victims emerging, have compelled the Met to re-open the enquiry. In the process it has become clear that collusion between the police and the News of the World went right to the top, involving high-ranking officers who have gone straight from the police service into jobs as journalists and consultants with News International. And still this is likely to be only the tip of the iceberg.

The same cozy relationship has existed between the government and luminaries of News International. Andy Coulson, was editor of News of the World between 2003 and 2007. He resigned when a journalist was convicted for hacking into the phones of members of the royal family. Coulson claimed, implausibly, that he knew nothing about it. Actually the practice was rampant and obviously encouraged, if not prescribed from above. Yet Coulson was subsequently engaged by Cameron as his director of communications, a post he continued to hold after Cameron became prime minister in 2010. Anyone with any sense at all could see that Coulson must not only have known about the phone hacking which was rampant under his editorship, but must also have approved it. Yet the prime minister continued to defend him long after it became clear that the man was a duplicitous mediocrity unfit to hold any respectable office. Under the increasing weight of evidence he was forced to resign in January of this year. Cameron defended him to the bitter end and has continued to claim him as a friend even after his arrest last week. To say that this raises serious questions about Cameron’s judgment is something of an understatement. Coulson was arrested last week.

Rebekah Brooks, who was editor of the News of the World in 2002 at the time of the hacking scandal involving the murdered child, Milly Dowler, (about which she claims to have known nothing) was subsequently elevated by Murdoch to CEO of News Corp. Although described by her defenders Rupert and James Murdoch, as “an outstanding journalist of her generation”, she might be more accurately described as someone closely resembling her colleague Andy Coulson - an ambitious, duplicitous mediocrity. But then, it is people such as these that rise to the top of the pile in the Godfather’s media empire. The characteristics they must possess if they are to succeed have nothing to do with serious journalism. They are ruthless ambition, single-minded pursuit of wealth and power, cavalier disregard for the truth and unquestioning belief in their ability to manipulate public opinion to accept whatever is in the interests the corporate powers they serve. They call it good public relations.

On the 19^th July – alas, too late for this column – Rupert and James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks will be questioned by the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee. They are availing themselves of the most expensive legal advice designed to limit the enormous damage that has already been done to the Godfather’s global interests by the NoW hacking scandal. Whatever the outcome, the big story is Murdoch’s pulling out of the BSkyB bid. This is a major reverse for him and could mark the beginning of a global melt-down. Last week it became clear that if the bid had been allowed to go to the media regulator, Ofcom, News Corp would not have been considered a “fit and proper” company to control BSkyB. Now, there are moves afoot to strip News Corp of the 31% of BSkyB Murdoch already owns. The Godfather has reason to be very worried.

In this situation the prime minister has been caught off-balance due to his close association with Coulson, Brooks and Murdoch. This has enabled Ed Miliband, leader of the Labour opposition to seize the initiative. To his credit, he has done so with alacrity and skill, thereby invigorating his leadership of the party and setting the agenda for what appears to be an extraordinary all-party united-front in opposition to Murdoch and News Corp’s ambitions in Britain.

But in most media coverage of a story that has dominated the headlines of the broadsheets and TV channels for the past two weeks, one important element has been largely missing. The hacking scandal would not have come to light had it not been for the diligent, genuinely investigative journalism of the liberal newspaper, The Guardian, which, incidentally is the only daily British newspaper to be owned by a trust (The Scott Trust). Most of the media world is dominated by global companies and billionaires. It is hardly surprising that The Guardian, along with the BBC, is a regular target of the right-wing press in Britain. One of the main reasons that so few of the other newspapers showed any interest in the revelations carried by The Guardian is that so many of them dredge their dirt from the same gutter as the NoW and The Sun. It is obviously too much to hope that the scandal now engulfing Murdoch will put an end to the practices that his media have perfected. This is the only way the tabloid press knows how to operate. The claim upon which their modus operandi is based, namely that they give the public what it wants, is as valid as drug dealers who could claim that they are simply meeting the needs of addicts.

This, of course, is Murdoch’s justification for the style and political content of his pride and joy in the U.S. - Fox News. Referring to the Godfather’s political agenda on that paragon of unbiased communication, liberal columnist Will Hutton writes in The Observer (17. July) “Mr Murdoch is apologizing this weekend for the behaviour of his papers over phone-hacking. That, as western economies totter on the precipice, is not all for which he has to apologise.”

GREECE ON THE BRINK: Banking on a Bailout.

Albert Einstein is supposed to have defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” The recurrent cases of boom and bust in the global financial markets since the 1970s, culminating in the financial meltdown of 2008, may be seen as evidence in support of this maxim. Now, the burgeoning Greek debt crisis and its impact on the eurozone, looks likely to provide yet another example of the collective repetitive insanity syndrome. The policy-makers of the EU, the ECB, the IMF and the private financial institutions that have underwritten Greek debt over the past decade, are about to administer yet again a more extreme dose of the same toxic medicine that has so signally failed to lift the country out of recession. Such measures have failed in Spain, in Portugal and in Ireland. They are set to fail even more dramatically in Greece.

So inured have so many become to the superficial and partial treatment of the Greek crisis in the British media, that in so far as it is considered at all, the likely response is one of relief that the burden of a bailout will not fall upon the British taxpayer. Prime Minister Cameron was at pains to point this out at the recent EU summit in Brussels. Never mentioned is the fact that the real beneficiaries of the new 120bn euro bailout will be those banks and financial institutions around the world who have lent to Greece. They are refusing to take a “hair cut” – to roll over their debts and accept losses. The bailout is intended first and foremost to ensure that these creditors will be rescued from the consequences of their irresponsible lending, in just the same way as the banks behind the sub-prime mortgage crisis which led to the financial crash were rescued from collapse in 2008. And just as the working people of Britain, Ireland, Spain and Portugal are paying for the financial profligacy of the banks through the imposition of harsh austerity measures in the name of “deficit reduction”, so the Greek people are now being reduced to penury in order to prop up the international financial system and guarantee the survival of the Euro zone.

All this is reminiscent of the outcome of the banks’ lending spree to Latin American governments in the late 1970s. In a prescient review of Jeff Madrick’s “Age of Greed: the Triumph of Finance and the Decline of America, 1970 to the Present” (New York Review of Books. June 2011), Paul Krugman and Robin Wells write:

“When the loans to Latin American governments went bad, Citi and other banks were rescued via a program that was billed as aid to troubled debtor nations but was in fact largely aimed at helping US and European banks. In that sense the program for Latin America in the 1980s bore a strong family resemblance to what is happening to Europe’s peripheral economies now. Large official loans were provided to debtor nations, not to help them economically, but to help them to repay their private sector creditors. In effect, it looked like a country bailout, but it was really an indirect bank bailout. And the banks did indeed weather the storm. But the loans came with a price, namely harsh austerity programs imposed on debtor nations.”

This describes the Greek/Euro situation exactly. There is an increasing sense that the European governments attempting to come to terms with the implications of the Greek debt crisis are whistling in the dark. The traumatic experience of the 2008 financial meltdown is still a present reality, the consequences of which, far from having receded, are only now being felt to the full. But in Britain the media are complicit in encouraging a mood of complacent smugness, suggesting that Greece is a far-away country about which we know little and need care less. It’s a “eurozone” problem and as Britain, thankfully, is not in the eurozone, it will not affect us. But this is nonsense. The reality is that Greece will be unable to meet its debt obligations and sooner or later will default. Most serious commentators talk, not about “if” Greece defaults, but “when”. The new loan, to enable the government to pay its creditors, comes with tight strings attached, in the form of austerity measures unprecedented in their severity - twice as large as the draconian ones already in place. These include sacking 20% of public sector workers, massive tax rises and a privatization programme more extensive than anything ever attempted. What happens when Greece defaults? This is the nightmare prospect haunting the corridors of power in Europe – and almost certainly in the US also. Osborne’s and Cameron’s feigned insouciance cloaks what must (or should) be growing concern. The governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, was hardly reassuring when, asked if a Greek default might lead to a meltdown like the one caused by the collapse of Lehman Brothers, replied: “I am not sure that the sovereign crisis now and what happened in the case of Lehman Brothers have much in common, other than in the fact that it is a mess.” Note – he is not sure!

British banks hold £3bn of Greek bonds, a relatively small amount. This has led to the claim that the UK will have low exposure to any default, and that as Britain will not contribute to the eurozone bailout, taxpayers will be spared. But this is deceptive. It is not the direct involvement of the banks in Greek debt that is the problem, but the indirect involvement. As Keynesian economist Will Hutton points out in a recent Observer column ((19.06.11), the British banking system has outstanding loans of £6.5 trillion – more than four times Britain’s GDP. Against this the banks have only £300bn of equity capital – funds intended to support loans. The insurance policy for such loans exists in the form of so-called credit default swaps (CDS) and they are priced according to how the market assesses the risk of banks having difficulty servicing their debts. According to Hutton, three of the four riskiest banks, calculated by the pricing of CDS are Lloyds, RBS and Santander. Should Greece default on its debts and trigger a chain reaction engulfing Ireland, Portugal and Spain, followed by the collapse of the euro, he concludes that “the consequent losses could eliminate the capital underwriting the entire banking edifice.” In such a scenario, which is far from improbable, the CDS would be worthless bits of paper.

Most journalistic commentary on the Greek/Euro crisis is content to marginalize the main players – the working populations of Greece and the rest of Europe. It is as if they were at best bit-players in a drama the outcome of which would be settled in the corridors of political and financial power. But for those with eyes to see - those whose sensitivities have not been blunted by the luxuries and comforts of class privilege, those who have not been shielded from reality by wealth and power - it has become increasingly obvious that this is a crisis of the whole system of finance-monopoly capitalism. The outcome, sooner or later, will be decided by the masses of ordinary people throughout Europe and the world who are no longer prepared to tolerate a system that is literally ruining their lives.

It is to be hoped that the thousands who gather daily in Syntagma Square in Athens will grow in numbers, strength and determination until they constitute an unstoppable tide. They have adopted from their Spanish comrades the title “Indignados” - the angry ones – and they are determined to continue their struggle until they have thrown off this intolerable burden of impoverishment imposed upon them at the behest of a political and financial system whose culpable elites have escaped scot-free. We can be sure that those at the top of Greek society who operated a tax-evasion system to suit themselves, will feel none of the pain now being inflicted on impoverished public sector workers. The old interrogative maxim “Which Side are You On?” was never more pertinent than now. No specious form of words will do to suggest that the unbearable impoverishment of the people must somehow be endured for the sake of economic recovery. No resigned appeal for reasonableness should be tolerated on the grounds that unbearable impoverishment must be accepted for fear of something worse. We can be sure that those who argue thus, wherever they are, will not themselves have to bear the burden they would have others accept without protest.

The struggle for democratic freedom is indivisible. For all the differences in circumstances, those demonstrating and fighting for their freedom in the Arab world are part of the same historic movement as those protesting in Syntagma Square. And in Britain the coming wave of strikes and demonstrations organized by the trades unions against the unprecedented spending cuts here are also part of the international movement against a system that can no longer maintain the standard of living and public services for which working people have struggled and sacrificed over decades and centuries. And, as is to be expected, those in power who speak of democracy, when confronted with the organized power of the people in workplaces or on the street, will not hesitate to use the law to try to curtail the people’s right to exercise their democratic right to strike and protest. Be prepared.

THE GREEK TRAGEDY: And a suggested shock therapy solution.

Tourists visiting the beautiful Aegean island of Paros in early June would have no hint of the crisis engulfing Greece. Everything seems idyllic. The pace of life is relaxed, the weather is sublime, the restaurants are full, the beaches are pristine and the azure sky is matched perfectly by the shimmering blue of the sea. This tourist paradise is replicated on dozens of the most popular Greek islands that have been destinations for British and other northern European and US holidaymakers for decades. They are the homes of many ex-pats and provide holiday homes for thousands more who wish to escape colder winters further north. Wealthier Athenians retreat to the islands from the stifling summer heat of the capital. The holiday visitor may spend a day or two in Athens to see the Acropolis and the Parthenon without being unduly disturbed by the daily demonstrations by tens of thousands in Constitution Square.

They are protesting against the draconian austerity measures imposed by the government of George Papandreou at the behest of the EU and the IMF from whom Greece received last year 110bn euros (£95bn) in emergency loans. This has not been sufficient to allay the creditors’ increasing fears of a sovereign debt default and negotiations are under way to provide a new package of 65bn euros. The price for all this is already being paid by the working people of Greece who are reeling from unprecedented cuts in public spending. The creditors are demanding an accelerated sell-off of state property – a 50bn euros privatization drive - and further belt-tightening in the form of ever more drastic cuts to wages and pensions, decimation of welfare services, loss of benefits and soaring taxes. The protests are growing. On June 3^rd trade unionists stormed the finance ministry and erected a banner calling for an “organized overthrow” of the austerity measures, which, they claimed would “turn workers into modern slaves.”

But the unbearable misery inflicted on millions of Greeks is not something that concerns the dignitaries of the EU and the IMF or the investors who bought Greek government bonds. Their far loftier concerns leave no room for such trifling matters. To the extent that such things impinge at all on their consciousness, they are interested only in ensuring that Papandreou pushes the austerity measures through at all costs and copes firmly with the consequences. The noxious medicine must be administered regardless of the pain caused the patient. A Greek debt default, they calculate, would seriously destabilize the Euro zone and, given the inevitable knock-on effect on the near bankrupt economies of Ireland, Portugal and possibly Spain, could lead to a European crisis with incalculable global consequences. Alarm bells are ringing very loudly.

                                           ------------------------------------------------

Now, to strike a rather less somber note, readers may find interesting – even entertaining – a leaked document from the consortium of secretive commodities traders, Slashburn-Snatchett and Grabclaw. Grabclaw’s publicity-shy founder, Mr Stark Richman, fled the US in the early 1980s after being indicted for tax evasion of $50m, but returned later having been granted a Presidential pardon. Although not confirmed, it is likely that the leaked document was written by him as, according to those who know him, it bears his inimitable style and reflects his subtle and nuanced approach to market trading. It is, however, likely that it was a joint effort with his colleague Mr. Aristotle Mistakenideas, who runs Grabclaw’s zinc, copper and lead section. Mistakenideas is one of the two richest men in Greece. The document candidly sets out Grabclaw’s perspective on the present crisis in Greece:

“Greece is a basket case. Whatever the outcome of the current negotiations with the EU and IMF for a second bail out, the Greeks are definitely gonna default on their sovereign debt. It’ll happen this year, probably sooner rather than later. They deserve all that’s coming to them and they don’t deserve sympathy. The country’s got too few real entrepreneurs and too many indolent, devious layabouts. They may have had some sort of culture two thousand years ago, but they got none now. They don’t want to pay their taxes. It’s fine and commendable for real go-getters, genuine risk takers - who by dint of their financial and economic brilliance in the market have enriched themselves as well as giving something back to the country – it’s OK for them to avoid punitive taxation. But we’re talking about millions of lesser people, way down the pecking order. They’re the ones who’ve brought the country to its knees. And then the government has wasted billions on inflating a parasitic state, funding a welfare system and paying people pensions they don’t deserve. The dependency culture’s got to end. The state’s too big. It’s got to be cut down to size. Greece is over-ripe for shock therapy.

It’s here that the real opportunity for calculated risk-takers comes in. The EU and the IMF are right to demand more privatization. There should be NO limits on privatization. The Greeks have got a lot of assets they don’t deserve. They don’t know how to run them. There’s a simple principle here: everything must be thrown open to the market, to competition. All state assets must be sold off to any willing bidder. Let’s consider some of the assets. Last year a couple of German politicians, Josef Schlarmann of the CDU and Frank Schaeffler of the FDP proposed that the Greeks should be made to sell the Acropolis and the Parthenon. Merkel was too scared to follow up on the proposal and the idea was dropped. But that’s exactly what should happen and it shouldn’t stop there.

The Greeks have neglected these ruins for too long. Now they’re taking too long to clean them up. The country’s bankrupt. They can’t afford it. This is where we come in. The Akropolis and the Parthenon should be sold and dismantled. They were built by slaves about 2000 years ago and now there are a lot of unemployed people in Greece – about 16% of the workforce. Soon there are going to be a lot more. All their benefits are being cut which is as it should be. Thousands of them can be employed dismantling these ruins. They can be sliced up and shipped to the USA where they can be reconstructed close to Las Vegas, where they will look really nice and can be made the centre of a big Grecian theme park. Lord Elgin had the right idea two hundred years ago. He took the sculptures from the Parthenon and sold them to the British government. But he left a lot of them there. We can finish what he started and they can be taken somewhere where they will be really appreciated. There are a lot more ruins there that can be cleared up very profitably.

The Greek government has fired so many state employees that they don’t have enough staff to guard the displays in the National Archeological Museum in Athens. They’ve had to close most of the exhibits down which has annoyed the tourists who are being short-changed. This can’t continue. The same situation exists in the other 350 museum sites in Greece. The obvious solution is to close them all down and sell off the exhibits to private collectors who will really appreciate them and may be prepared to loan them out to other museums. The Saudis should be very interested in getting in on this deal. The Russian oligarchs will also be interested and will pay very high prices for some of this crap. Our job is to be in at the start and snap up the best bits.

Then there are the islands. There are about 6.000 Greek islands. Only about 200 are inhabited. There’s enormous potential here. It is a disgrace in this day and age that most of these islands are state property. The main ones that attract so many tourists have been developed by a handful of enterprising Greeks and foreign corporations. The government should be compelled to sell off all the islands. They can then be properly developed to maximum advantage. Obviously restrictive planning regulations which prevent tall buildings being constructed and dictate that they should all be painted white, must be scrapped. There are large numbers of uninhabited islands with great potential for development and a huge expansion of tourism may be anticipated when they’ve all been privatized.

All this will need a steady hand at the helm and cool heads in command. The situation on the streets must not be allowed to get out of control. Unless the Greek government is able to resist the mass protest movement being stirred up by left-wing malcontents and trade union militants, it may be blown off course, with unpredictable consequences for a free market economy. The rabble-rousers must be brought to heel. If the police can’t handle them, the army should be called in before things get out of control. And if the army proves to be squeamish about taking the necessary action to clear the streets of the rabble, our recommendation is that the US private security firm Xe Services (formerly Blackwater) should be called in. They did a sterling job in Iraq and have exactly the military skills and experience this situation demands. A rowdy and disgruntled populace that is unable or unwilling to see what is good for them may need to be taught a lesson. After all, there have been periods in twentieth century Greek history when the imposition of a strong disciplined regime has not come amiss. An earlier German government faced with Greek communist terrorists between 1941 and 45 stood for no nonsense. Firm discipline was necessary after the war to deal with armed insurrection and the strong government of the colonels between 1967 and 1974 brought law and order to a fractious people. Something similar may be need again if things get out of control.” 

THE OBAMA VISIT: The Essentials of the Not-So-Special Relationship

The last days of May have seen a continuation of the sunny, rain-free weather that has blessed (or afflicted, depending on your point of view) the south-east of England for many weeks now. So London has been bathed in sunshine for the state visit of the Obamas, providing another opportunity for a replay of the pomp and circumstance of the royal wedding a month ago. For a government engaged in imposing the most draconian austerity measures in living memory, opportunities for distraction such as this must be seized with both hands. The public relations possibilities have been exploited shamelessly by prime minister Cameron who, together with Barack Obama,has been filmed for the news channels playing table tennis with pupils at a south London state secondary school. Meanwhile, Michelle Obama took a group of schoolgirls from the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson school in north London (which she had visited in 2009) where many of the students are black and 54% qualify for free school meals, to Oxford University’s Christ Church College where hardly any students are black and most come from fee-paying “independent” (private) schools. The point of the exercises was to convince these children that they can achieve anything if they have the will, drive and determination to do so. But social inequality in Britain, already amongst the worst in the developed world, is growing. The unfortunate reality, which the propagators of “every fairy story can come true” myths prefer to ignore, is that most of the young people in the schools visited by the Obamas will grow up poorer, with fewer prospects than their parents’ generation.

There is no doubt that Barack and Michelle Obama are very popular in Britain. Kids from deprived ethnic minority and working class backgrounds, suddenly finding themselves in the presence of this glamorous, world-famous yet apparently accessible couple from backgrounds that seem similar to their own, are likely to be thrilled and inspired to believe that “anything is possible.” It is unimaginable that G.W. and Laura Bush could have pulled off anything like this. On Bush’s visits to London he had to be kept away from the public and from huge, angry demonstrations against his visits. Following the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the anti-war demonstrations against Bush and Blair numbered hundreds of thousands to more than one million. This week, a demonstration outside Buckingham Palace called by the Stop the War Coalition was so small that it was easily ignored by the news media. This, despite the fact that Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan, increased the use of drones in Pakistan, backed the Nato bombing of Libya, bypassed international law in the extra-judicial assassination of Osama Bin Laden and failed to close down the US detention camp at Guatanamo. And the British government remains as closely allied to the United States in the so-called “special relationship” as it was when Tony Blair was in office.

Active opposition in Britain to US foreign policy in the Middle East, Afghanistan and now Libya has all but collapsed since Obama took office. The same can be said for opposition to Britain’s alignment with the U.S. It has been estimated that the ConLib government’s involvement in Libya will cost the taxpayer over £1 billion if the war continues through the autumn. This at a time when we are told that painful cuts to public services must be endured as there is no money to fund them. How is such a remarkable change of fortune to be explained? A large part of it must be put down to the “Obama phenomenon”. For a prominent world leader to be more popular abroad than in his or her own country is nothing new. In the 1980s Mikhail Gorbachev was more popular in Europe than in the Soviet Union and Margaret Thatcher was more popular in the United States than she was in Britain. Obama seems to be more popular in Britain than in the United States. Part of the reason for this is that the violent hatred borne him by the Tea Party movement and other sections of the Republican right-wing is regarded here as motivated by racist bigotry. It serves to confirm the opinion amongst liberals that large numbers of Americans prefer as president an inarticulate semi-literate to an eloquent intellectual tribune – especially if the latter is black. 

Such is the fascination with Obama that the professional political class here jostles to be seen in his company. Cameron hopes that his visit will have done the government – and him in particular - a power of good. The president’s arrival from Ireland was preceded by a joint article in the Times on the 23^rd May. This was intended to convey the impression of an identity of aims and interests. It amounted to little more than a string of predictable platitudes which will serve the purpose of the moment but will be forgotten very soon. “We are two different countries but our destination must be the same; strong and stable growth, reduced deficits and reform of our financial systems…so that they will never again be open to the abuses of the past.” At the very best this is wishfulness. They do not see eye to eye over the way to tackle budget deficits. Cameron wants Obama’s support for the speed and depth of his cuts; Obama has to face a hostile Congress that wants him to cut deeper and faster. Talk about reforms to the financial system to avoid the abuses of the past is pie in the sky. The banks have been let off the hook, pretty much guaranteeing that the abuses will recur. In Britain the “deficit reduction” policies, far from ensuring “strong and stable growth” have already resulted in no growth – the most likely prospect for the foreseeable future.

A main purpose of the Times article and the joint appearances and speeches is to assert once again that the “special relationship” is alive and well. It has now been re-branded the “essential relationship”. The term is equally vacuous, but it is intended to serve as a useful PR exercise which, it is hoped, will play to the advantage of both leaders with their own electorates. The media coverage of the Obamas at Buckingham Palace as guests of the queen should, it is hoped, play well with the US domestic audience. For his part, Cameron hopes that some of the Obama presidential magic will brush off on him, enhancing his delusion that he is an important world statesman. The “special relationship” is all show with no substance. To call it “essential” is intended to suggest that it is crucial; that the UK plays a vital part with the US on the world stage. From the US point of view, whatever the protestations to the contrary, it is the cost-free indulgence of a declining post-imperial European power for whom there remains a cultural sentiment based on shared language.

An earlier Letter from the UK argued that the idea of a special relationship went back to Churchill’s 1941 meeting with FDR which produced the Atlantic Charter. Following World War Two, Britain, together with the other European “great powers” was relegated to the ranks of the second and third class. Soon, the British Empire, for which Churchill had fought so stubbornly, was no more. Ever since, successive British governments have sought solace for their imperial decline by attaching themselves to the apron-strings of the great English-speaking power across the Atlantic; the former colony that they liked to think had inherited the mantle of the British Empire. Today it is all patent nonsense.

Not only is Britain of no real consequence globally; the United States is also well past its prime as an imperial power. The rising powers are China and India. Yet if the posturing of Cameron and Obama were taken seriously one would imagine that they were to be the arbiters of the destiny of the whole world in the years to come. Their joint article in The Times is redolent of deception, double standards and hypocrisy. This may be demonstrated by questioning a few of their ringing declarations and claims to moral rectitude. Addressing themselves to the situation in the Arab world, they warn autocratic regimes against the violent denial of the hopes of their citizens:

 “We will not stand by as their aspirations get crushed in a hail of bombs, bullets and mortar fire. We are reluctant to use force, but when our interests and values come together, we know we have a responsibility to act.” Note, “when our interests and values come together”. Presumably this has happened in Libya where they have unleashed a hail of bullets and bombs, but not in Syria, Bahrain or Saudi Arabia.

“We will stand with those who want to bring light into dark, support those laying the building blocks of democracy”. We can only begin to imagine the benighted, repressive nature of a regime that imprisons women for the crime of driving a car. But Saudi Arabia is the lynchpin of Western oil supplies. No “responsibility to act” there to help bring light into darkness.; likewise in Bahrain and Yemen. According to William Hague, the use of force by Assad of Syria is unacceptable. But it will be accepted.

In Afghanistan Obama says that “Nato has broken the Taliban momentum” and there will “soon begin a transition to an Afghan lead.” Not according to the best informed opinion on the war there. This wishful optimism completely belies the actual situation on the ground. And with regard to the Israeli/Palestinian stalemate Obama and Cameron say “We stand united in our support for a secure Israel and a sovereign Palestine.” This can mean anything or nothing. If it means that Obama and Cameron mean to stand firm on the stated commitment to support a territorial solution on the basis of the pre-1967 borders and are determined to resist Netanyahu’s certain attempt to sabotage this, then that would be progress. But we can be sure that they won’t. It will be interesting to see how the champions of democracy react to the UN General Assembly vote next September on the question of Palestinian statehood.

But it may not be too unrealistic to hope that the continuing Arab revolution will slip beyond the control of the Western powers. If the democratic movement is allowed to take its course, it may succeed in ending the deadlock of decades and breaking the grip not only of the despotic Arab rulers but also of the Western backers and armourers who have for so long underpinned their power.

SCOTLAND THE BRAVE

Will May 2011 go down in history as the beginning of the end of the United Kingdom in its present form? Until now the suggestion that the UK might actually break up any time in the foreseeable future has been dismissed by political commentators and constitutional pundits as the pipe-dream of romantic nationalists – a proposition not worthy of serious consideration. Now, following Britain’s local government and Scottish parliament election results and the outcome of the AV referendum on May 6^th, the prospect cannot be so easily dismissed. North of the border, the Scottish National party (SNP) has been swept to power with an overall majority. This is a development of enormous significance and by far the most important outcome of a national poll which has seen the Liberal Democrats wiped from the electoral map throughout most of Britain. Before commenting more fully on the Scottish result, a few observations may be made about the elections in the rest of the UK.

Most informed commentary in the immediate aftermath of the polls has concentrated on the collapse of support for the Lib Dems and the crushing defeat for the “Yes” campaign, a centre-piece of their policy, in the referendum on voting reform. It has been clear for many months that the Lib Dems would pay a heavy electoral price for their decision a year ago to go into a coalition with the Tories. The leader of the party, Nick Clegg, now deputy prime minister, has suffered a more dramatic fall from grace than any political leader of modern times. He shot to stardom in the leadership debates preceding last year’s general election only to sink rapidly into public obloquy as he was perceived (correctly) to have reneged on firm commitments he had made to those sections of the electorate whose support he sought. The Tories have emerged from the English elections relatively unscathed. Given that they lead a government in the process of implementing the most severe cuts in public spending since the 1930s, this seems surprising. Their vote in the south of England and in their rural heartlands further north has held up. From a strong base the Tories made a net gain of three councils, giving them a total of 152; Labour made a net gain of 26 councils giving them control of 56. The Lib Dems lost 9 and gained none, leaving them in control of only 11 councils. Labour gained support in Wales at the expense of the Tories and Plaid Cymru (the Welsh Nationalists) leaving them one short of a majority.

The Tories are gloating over these results. They are particularly pleased about the failure of the campaign for the alternative vote (AV), which was overwhelmingly defeated in the referendum by 68% to 32%. This leaves the first-past-the-post system intact, pretty much ensuring that governments in Britain will continue to be elected on as little as 35% of the poll. This system has always favoured the Tories. Many – perhaps most –Tory MPs are gleeful at the humiliation of Clegg and the Lib Dems. Some are hoping that their coalition partners will crack up and break with the government, thus precipitating a new election which they are confident of winning. Such confidence is not necessarily misplaced. At first sight it seems puzzling that the Tories are not suffering more than they are. There are several reasons why they are not. In the first place the Labour party in opposition has not really opposed. They have not shaken off the mantle of “New Labour”. Ed Miliband has done little to convince potential supporters that he has either the personality or the policies to justify their support. The parliamentary party seems supine in the face of the Con Dem assault. Both Tory and Lib Dem ministers constantly repeat platitudes about the need to “clear up the mess inherited from Labour” and “act together in the national interest”. Most of this goes without challenge. Then there is the press. Of the eight main national daily newspapers, five, with a combined circulation of several millions, support the Tories. These papers were all firmly opposed to AV. The Lib Dems have largely themselves to blame for their present plight. They accepted the Tory offer of full coalition which bound them to every decision taken by the government. The volte face on student tuition fees did enormous damage to the party, and to Clegg personally, from which they have not recovered. There was no majority in the 2011 election for the severe austerity measures being enacted, and by throwing in their lot with the Tories the Lib Dems have aroused the intense hostility of the majority of those who voted for them. They have taken far more of the blame than their Tory partners. Now they are caught between a rock and a very hard place. They cannot afford to jump ship as they fear their fate in an ensuing election. They can only cling on in the hope that the hoped-for economic recovery resulting from the present pain will restore their fortunes by 2015. Now back to the most dramatic story of the day: Scotland.

Prime Minister Cameron may have a self-satisfied smile on his face today, but it is unlikely to survive his first encounters with Scotland’s first minister, Alex Salmond. The Scottish result is truly historic. For many years in British general elections, Scotland has been almost a Tory-free zone. In the 2010 election, from 59 constituencies they returned one MP to the Westminster parliament. Labour returned 41, the Lib Dems 11 and the SNP 7. This led Nick Clegg to say that the SNP was irrelevant. Now consider the outcome of the May 2011 elections to the Scottish parliament. The SNP returned 69 MPs, Labour 37, the Tories 15 and the LIB Dems 5. In addition, 2 Greens and 1 Independent were elected. In Edinburgh’s 129 seat unicameral chamber it gives the SNP an overall majority of 9 seats. This is an extraordinary breakthrough because the electoral system devised for the devolved parliament in the 1997 Scotland Act provided for a legislature elected by a combination of first-past-the-post and proportional representation. Intended to prevent any one party achieving an overall majority, it was specifically directed against the SNP whose ultimate aim was independence for Scotland. Since 2007 the SNP has led a minority government with Salmond as first minister. Needless to say all the other main parties are totally opposed to Scottish independence, which they rightly recognize would mean the break up of the United Kingdom. Now, there is a majority at Holyrood (seat of the Scottish parliament) of twelve for parties committed to independence, as the two Greens and one Independent are also in favour. But does this mean that it is likely to be achieved during the term of the present Westminster parliament? Most “informed opinion” says no. Indeed, according to such opinion, it will never happen. But, behind such certainties may be detected a creeping tone of apprehension. David Cameron, commenting on the prospect of a referendum on independence, says “If they want to hold a referendum, I will campaign to keep our United Kingdom together with every single fibre I have.” He may not be as lucky as he was in his opposition to AV.

According to current opinion polls support in Scotland for full independence stands at around 30%. It may well be that things will not have changed much in four or five years time. But these are very fluid and unpredictable times and it is possible to foresee a tide of opinion rising in favour of independence. Scotland has been part of the United Kingdom for more than 300 years, since the Treaty of Union of 1707.There has always been a vocal minority in Scotland against the union. During the past forty years there has been much bitterness at the way Scottish interests have been handled at Westminster. This became intense in the late 1970s with the scuppering of the devolution bill. In fact, the withdrawal of SNP support from Callaghan’s minority Labour government led indirectly to his defeat on a confidence motion in 1979. This was followed by the defeat of the government in the election which brought Thatcher to power, leading to eighteen years of Tory rule. During those years Scottish opinion hardened decisively against a government that was responsible for the destruction of the Scotland’s mining and manufacturing industries and the exploitation of Scotland’s North Sea oil with scant regard for its declining economy.

The SNP led government has achieved a lot. They have shielded the welfare state from the assaults that are decimating services south of the border. Higher education and care for the elderly have been protected. Salmond has picked up the social democratic banner discarded by New Labour. The SNP now stands to the left of Labour in Scotland. With an overall majority in Edinburgh they have the wind in their sails and Salmond shows every sign of using his majority to wrest greater concessions from Westminster. There will be stormy days ahead and it is impossible to know how things will turn out. But there is every reason to hope that he will continue to operate with the skill he has shown over the last four years and it is not unrealistic to imagine that he may eventually carry a majority with his party to push for complete independence for Scotland. Such a development would lead to the most severe confrontation with the full power of the British state. If Scotland were to achieve independence it would deliver a well-deserved blow to a sclerotic institution and help reconstitute the territories of these islands as a federation more suited to the modern world.