A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
(Full Story)
Search This Blog
Back to 500BC.
==========================
Thiranjala Weerasinghe sj.- One Island Two Nations
?????????????????????????????????????????????????Monday, August 1, 2016
Silencing America As It Prepares For War
The hysteria in the liberal
media over Trump serves an illusion of “free and open debate” and
“democracy at work”. His views on immigrants and Muslims are grotesque,
yet the deporter-in-chief of vulnerable people from America is not Trump
but Obama, whose betrayal of people of colour is his legacy: such as
the warehousing of a mostly black prison population, now more numerous than Stalin’s gulag.
( July 30, 2016, London Sri Lanka Guardian) Returning
to the United States in an election year, I am struck by the silence. I
have covered four presidential campaigns, starting with 1968; I was with
Robert Kennedy when he was shot and I saw his assassin, preparing to
kill him. It was a baptism in the American way, along with the
salivating violence of the Chicago police at the Democratic Party’s
rigged convention. The great counter revolution had begun.
The first to be assassinated that year, Martin Luther King, had dared
link the suffering of African-Americans and the people of Vietnam. When
Janis Joplin sang, “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to
lose”, she spoke perhaps unconsciously for millions of America’s victims
in faraway places.
“We lost 58,000 young soldiers in Vietnam, and they died defending your
freedom. Now don’t you forget it.” So said a National Parks Service
guide as I filmed last week at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington. He
was addressing a school party of young teenagers in bright orange
T-shirts. As if by rote, he inverted the truth about Vietnam into an
unchallenged lie.
The millions of Vietnamese who died and were maimed and poisoned and
dispossessed by the American invasion have no historical place in young
minds, not to mention the estimated 60,000 veterans who took their own
lives. A friend of mine, a marine who became a paraplegic in Vietnam,
was often asked, “Which side did you fight on?”
A few years ago, I attended a popular exhibition called “The Price of
Freedom” at the venerable Smithsonian Institution in Washington. The
lines of ordinary people, mostly children shuffling through a Santa’s
grotto of revisionism, were dispensed a variety of lies: the atomic
bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved “a million lives”; Iraq was
“liberated [by] air strikes of unprecedented precision”. The theme was
unerringly heroic: only Americans pay the price of freedom.
The 2016 election campaign is remarkable not only for the rise of Donald
Trump and Bernie Sanders but also for the resilience of an enduring
silence about a murderous self-bestowed divinity. A third of the members
of the United Nations have felt Washington’s boot, overturning
governments, subverting democracy, imposing blockades and boycotts. Most
of the presidents responsible have been liberal – Truman, Kennedy,
Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama.
The breathtaking record of perfidy is so mutated in the public mind,
wrote the late Harold Pinter, that it “never happened …Nothing ever
happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t
matter. It was of no interest. It didn’t matter … “. Pinter expressed a
mock admiration for what he called “a quite clinical manipulation of
power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a
brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.”
Take Obama. As he prepares to leave office, the fawning has begun all
over again. He is “cool”. One of the more violent presidents, Obama gave
full reign to the Pentagon war-making apparatus of his discredited
predecessor. He prosecuted more whistleblowers – truth-tellers – than
any president. He pronounced Chelsea Manning guilty before she was
tried. Today, Obama runs an unprecedented worldwide campaign of
terrorism and murder by drone.
In 2009, Obama promised to help “rid the world of nuclear weapons” and
was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. No American president has built more
nuclear warheads than Obama. He is “modernising”
America’s doomsday arsenal, including a new “mini” nuclear weapon, whose
size and “smart” technology, says a leading general, ensure its use is
“no longer unthinkable”.
James Bradley, the best-selling author of Flags of Our Fathers and son
of one of the US marines who raised the flag on Iwo Jima, said, “[One]
great myth we’re seeing play out is that of Obama as some kind of
peaceful guy who’s trying to get rid of nuclear weapons. He’s the
biggest nuclear warrior there is. He’s committed us to a ruinous course
of spending a trillion dollars on more nuclear weapons. Somehow, people
live in this fantasy that because he gives vague news conferences and
speeches and feel-good photo-ops that somehow that’s attached to actual
policy. It isn’t.”
On Obama’s watch, a second cold war is under way. The Russian president
is a pantomime villain; the Chinese are not yet back to their sinister
pig-tailed caricature – when all Chinese were banned from the United
States – but the media warriors are working on it.
Neither Hillary Clinton nor Bernie Sanders has mentioned any of this.
There is no risk and no danger for the United States and all of us. For
them, the greatest military build-up on the borders of Russia since
World War Two has not happened. On May 11, Romania went “live” with a
Nato “missile defence” base that aims its first-strike American missiles
at the heart of Russia, the world’s second nuclear power.
In Asia, the Pentagon is sending ships, planes and special forces to the
Philippines to threaten China. The US already encircles China with
hundreds of military bases that curve in an arc up from Australia, to
Asia and across to Afghanistan. Obama calls this a “pivot”.
As a direct consequence, China reportedly has changed its nuclear
weapons policy from no-first-use to high alert and put to sea submarines
with nuclear weapons. The escalator is quickening.
It was Hillary Clinton who, as Secretary of State in 2010, elevated the
competing territorial claims for rocks and reef in the South China Sea
to an international issue; CNN and BBC hysteria followed; China was
building airstrips on the disputed islands. In its mammoth war game in
2015, Operation Talisman Sabre, the US practiced “choking” the Straits
of Malacca through which pass most of China’s oil and trade. This was
not news.
Clinton declared that America had a “national interest” in these Asian
waters. The Philippines and Vietnam were encouraged and bribed to pursue
their claims and old enmities against China. In America, people are
being primed to see any Chinese defensive position as offensive, and so
the ground is laid for rapid escalation. A similar strategy of
provocation and propaganda is applied to Russia.
Clinton, the “women’s candidate”, leaves a trail of bloody coups: in
Honduras, in Libya (plus the murder of the Libyan president) and
Ukraine. The latter is now a CIA theme park swarming with Nazis and the
frontline of a beckoning war with Russia. It was through Ukraine –
literally, borderland — that Hitler’s Nazis invaded the Soviet Union,
which lost 27 million people. This epic catastrophe remains a presence
in Russia. Clinton’s presidential campaign has received money from all
but one of the world’s ten biggest arms companies. No other candidate
comes close.
Sanders, the hope of many young Americans, is not very different from
Clinton in his proprietorial view of the world beyond the United States.
He backed Bill Clinton’s illegal bombing of Serbia. He supports Obama’s
terrorism by drone, the provocation of Russia and the return of special
forces (death squads) to Iraq. He has nothing to say on the drumbeat of
threats to China and the accelerating risk of nuclear war. He agrees
that Edward Snowden should stand trial and he calls Hugo Chavez – like
him, a social democrat – “a dead communist dictator”. He promises to
support Clinton if she is nominated.
The election of Trump or Clinton is the old illusion of choice that is
no choice: two sides of the same coin. In scapegoating minorities and
promising to “make America great again”, Trump is a far right-wing
domestic populist; yet the danger of Clinton may be more lethal for the
world.
“Only Donald Trump has said anything meaningful and critical of US
foreign policy,” wrote Stephen Cohen, emeritus professor of Russian
History at Princeton and NYU, one of the few Russia experts in the
United States to speak out about the risk of war.
In a radio broadcast, Cohen referred to critical questions Trump alone
had raised. Among them: why is the United States “everywhere on the
globe”? What is NATO’s true mission? Why does the US always pursue
regime change in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine? Why does Washington treat
Russia and Vladimir Putin as an enemy?
The hysteria in the liberal media over Trump serves an illusion of “free
and open debate” and “democracy at work”. His views on immigrants and
Muslims are grotesque, yet the deporter-in-chief of vulnerable people
from America is not Trump but Obama, whose betrayal of people of colour
is his legacy: such as the warehousing of a mostly black prison
population, now more numerous than Stalin’s gulag.
This presidential campaign may not be about populism but American
liberalism, an ideology that sees itself as modern and therefore
superior and the one true way. Those on its right wing bear a likeness
to 19th century Christian imperialists, with a God-given duty to convert
or co-opt or conquer.
In Britain, this is Blairism. The Christian war criminal Tony Blair got
away with his secret preparation for the invasion of Iraq largely
because the liberal political class and media fell for his “cool
Britannia”. In the Guardian, the applause was deafening; he was called
“mystical”. A distraction known as identity politics, imported from the
United States, rested easily in his care.
History was declared over, class was abolished and gender promoted as
feminism; lots of women became New Labour MPs. They voted on the first
day of Parliament to cut the benefits of single parents, mostly women,
as instructed. A majority voted for an invasion that produced 700,000
Iraqi widows.
The equivalent in the US are the politically correct warmongers on the
New York Times, the Washington Post and network TV who dominate
political debate. I watched a furious debate on CNN about Trump’s
infidelities. It was clear, they said, a man like that could not be
trusted in the White House. No issues were raised. Nothing on the 80 per
cent of Americans whose income has collapsed to 1970s levels. Nothing
on the drift to war. The received wisdom seems to be “hold your nose”
and vote for Clinton: anyone but Trump. That way, you stop the monster
and preserve a system gagging for another war.
Follow John Pilger on twitter @johnpilger – http://johnpilger.com/