by Mark Curtis
roles; providing military
and 'counter-insurgency'
advice to South Vietnam;
British covert forces took
part in the war; intelligence
was passed to US
military. The British role
was therefore more
'direct' than 'indirect'
1962–1970 War in Yemen 100,000–200,000 British secret operation involving covert action and arms supplies
1962–1970 British
suppression of
Aden revolt 300–900 British 'colonial' government forces responsible
1965–1966 Indonesian army
slaughters 500,000–1,000,0007 Britain provided
Indonesian generals
with variety of direct,
covert support, including
'information' operations8
1952–1960 War in Kenya up to 150,0009 British colonial war and
'resettlement'
operations10
1948-1960 War in Malaya 10,000-13,000 Ditto11
1957-1958 Rebellion against
Indonesian
central
government thousands12 Covert operation with
US to support the
rebellion, including
arms supplies
1956 British invasion
of Egypt 1,600-3,00013 Military intervention
with France and Israel
1948-1955 Uprising in Baltic
states of the USSR 75,00014 British covert operation
to fund and support
uprisings15
1953 Coup in Iran 300 Covert operation with
CIA16
1950-1953 Korean war at least 1,000,000" Military played key role
technically as part of
UN force, in reality led
by US
1944-1949 Greek civil war 65,00-80,00018 Military/covert
operations to support
Greek government
1945-1949 War for
Indonesian
independence 5,000-80,00019 Military involvement to
suppress independence
movement
SUB-TOTAL 4.03-5.71m
INDIRECT RESPONSIBILITY
Year Conflict Estimated number
of deaths Britain's role
2000–present Israeli killings in
occupied
territories 2,72320 Blair government is
strong supporter of
Israeli policies, in
various ways
1999–present Killings in
Nigeria up to 10.00021 Blair government is
strong supporter of
Nigerian policies, in
various ways
1999–present Second Russian
invasion of
Chechnya 15,000–25,00022 Blair government is
strong supporter of
Russian policies, in
various ways
1996–present Nepal civil war 3.30023 Blair government
provides military/
diplomatic support to
Nepal government
1990–present Colombia state
killings 20,000–40,00024 Blair and previous
governments are strong
supporters of Colombian
policies, in various ways
1976–present Indonesian
attacks in Aceh
province 15,000 Blair and previous
governments arc strong
supporters of Indonesian
policies, in various ways
1969–present Indonesian
attacks in West
Papua province 100,000 Ditto
1991–2003 Sanctions against
Iraq 500,000–1,000,00025 Technically maintained
by the UN; in reality
supported virtually solely
by Britain and US
1999 Indonesian
attacks in East
Timor around 5,000 Blair government
continued to support,
and arm, Indonesia,
throughout violence26
1984–1999 Turkey's
campaign
against Kurds around 30,ooo27 British governments
were strong supporters
of Turkey's policies, in
various ways28
1998 US bombing of
Sudan perhaps tens of
thousands29 Britain strongly
supported US attack that
destroyed pharmaceutical
factory producing most of
Sudan's life-saving drugs
1994–1996 Russian invasion
of Chechnya perhaps tens of60,000–100,000 Major government
provided strong support
to Russia, in various ways
1948–1994 Apartheid South
Africa state
killings 10,000–20,000 British governments
consistently backed
South African regimes,
in various ways30
1989 US invasion
of Panama 353–3,00031 Britain provided strong
diplomatic support
1980–1988 Iran–Iraq war 1,000,000 Thatcher government
effectively supported
Iraq's attack on Iran,
supplying it with military
equipment and financial
aid
1987–1988 Iraq's campaign
against Kurds 100,000 Ditto'2
1984–1985 Ugandan civil
war 100,000–300,000 Britain provided strong
support to Ugandan
government and
maintained military
training programme
1984–1985 Indonesian state
killings 5,000 Thatcher government
was strong supporter of
Indonesia, in various
ways
Early 1980s El Salvador civil
war 75,000–80,000 Thatcher government
provided strong
diplomatic backing to
US strategy supporting
Salvadoran regime
1980s US aggression
against Nicaragua 30,000 Thatcher government
provided strong
diplomatic and other
backing, including covert
support, to US strategy33
1953–1979 Shah's regime in
Iran 10,000 British governments
provided strong support
to Shah's regime, in
various ways34
1975 Indonesian
invasion of East
Timor 200,000 Wilson/Callaghan
governments provided
strong backing to
Indonesia, in various
ways35
1973 Coup in Chile at least 3,000 Heath government
welcomed coup and
backed Pinochet regime,
as did subsequent
British governments
1967–1970 Nigeria/Biafra
civil war 1.000,000–3,000,000 Wilson government gave
strong backing to
Nigeria, in various ways
1963 Iraq killings 5,000 Macmillan government
in effect supported
massacres and welcomed
new military government
1960s Iraq campaigns
against Kurds 12,000–100,00036 British governments
gave strong backing to
Iraq in various ways
SUB-TOTAL 3.32m–6.20m
ACTIVE INACTION
Year Conflict Estimated number
of deaths Britain's role
1990s Yugoslav civil
wars 200,000–250,000 Major government
played key role to
prevent international
action against Milosevic
regime37
1994 Rwanda genocide 800,000–1,000,000 Major gover
nment
played key role at the U N
to prevent international
action to prevent or stop
genocide38
SUB-TOTAL 1m–1.25m
OTHERS
Year Conflict Estimated number
of deaths Britain's role
1971–1979 Ugandan state
terror (ldi Amin)
era 300,000 Heath government
welcomed and supported
Amin's rule in its first
year. Most atrocities
were committed after
this period but Britain
bears significant
responsibility in
enabling Amin regime to
consolidate its rule
SUB-TOTAL 300,000
TOTAL 8.65m–13.47m
CONCLUSION
The world has become a more dangerous place in the past two years, not least due to the actions of British decision-makers. In the context of a so-called 'war against terrorism', there are two sets of fanatics – those prepared to blow up as many innocent people as they can based on commitment to an extreme ideology; and those who, since they believe in controlling the world in the interests of a tiny elite, respond with military interventions likely to recruit more people to the cause. In the middle are caught ordinary people – more accurately, Unpeople ourselves.
In Web of Deceit I argued that the root of the problem of British foreign policy is the political system and nature of decision-making itself. Foreign policy is made by a secretive elite protected even from any serious democratic scrutiny, let alone any systematic influence over that policy by the public. There has long been no fundamental difference between the Labour and Conservative parties in foreign policy. As this book tries to show, many of the worst episodes have been presided over by Labour governments. The Blair government is even more militarily interventionist and contemptuous of international law than Thatcher. The invasion of Iraq demonstrated the government's contempt for public opinion – not only that of the personally chosen officials around the Prime Minister, but also of the backbench MPs who protected the government by voting for it. That too much power is invested in a single person and his hand-picked entourage is now perhaps more widely perceived than ever; as is the fact that elected MPs do not generally represent the public interest. Britain will always promote terrible foreign policies until this elitist system is democratised and a fundamental transformation of governance takes place.
Change needs to happen in the context of globalisation, which is concentrating wealth and power into the hands of a small number of private corporations and a transnational political and commercial elite. The global financial institutions need to be reconstituted to promote policies that strengthen communities' and people's abilities to act in their own interests. This means a dismantling of their current strategy of imposing a one-size-fits-all neo-liberal model of market fundamentalism all over the globe, a model being religiously championed by the liberalisation theologists of New Labour – another fanatical devotion to a strategy extremely harmful to ordinary people.
The global justice movement (mislabelled the 'anti-globalisation' movement) offers a counterweight to this transnational elite. By working across borders to press for alternatives, this movement can promote the natural solidarity among ordinary people in an increasingly interdependent world. These tasks are urgent in the light of the ongoing destruction of the environment and deepening poverty and inequality in many parts of the world – including Britain, where child poverty is one of the great scandals of our times.
The government's recent recourse to unprecedented propaganda shows the extent to which the public is feared. A perennial truth which emerges from the declassified files is the public's ability to mount protests and demonstrations that divert the government from its course. The propaganda on Iraq has often been so crude that many, perhaps most, people have been able to see through it. It is far from the case that all, or even most, propaganda works. Much government propaganda is directed towards opinion-formers, such as journalists and academics; these people, in my experience, are usually more deeply indoctrinated than 'ordinary people'. Essentially, it is the function of opinion-formers within the ideological system to convey, often totally uncritically, the policies and proclamations of the state to the public – but the latter are increasingly failing to play their assigned role.
In the talks and meetings to which I have been invited recently, it seems to me that these perceptions are contributing to the emergence of a new radicalism even among previously unpoliticised people. There is an increasing sense that the mainstream parties offer the same and nothing in terms of promoting a foreign policy respectful of human rights and moral values. And there is increasing anger and frustration about people's voices being ignored.
After 11 September there has been a more acute perception that we cannot afford the harmful, unilateralist approach to fellow human beings that either terrorists or indeed in different ways New Labour are promoting. More radical alternatives are needed to the mainstream parties at Westminster and which are based on the fact of global interdependence. In particular, there is widespread recognition that the various activist groups, more radical political elements and social movements need to find a way of coming together behind an alternative political and economic programme. My own view is that an agenda of promoting real democracy – domestically and globally – could provide an umbrella for uniting groups behind a coherent, common programme and appeal to a broad cross-section of people. It is a challenge in which everyone concerned about foreign policy must be involved. I also believe that opposition groups need to engage in harder-hitting campaigning tactics such as non-violent direct action to press for changes in official policies, rather than relying on insider lobbying, rational persuasion or more traditional forms of campaigning.
The obstacles to bringing about policies that actually promote human rights and treat people as people rather than Unpeople, remain great. The power of centralised government is growing, with the 'war against terrorism' heralding new laws with which to undermine human rights and clamp down on domestic dissent. State propaganda operations are increasing and the mainstream sources of information remain heavily indoctrinated in their coverage.
Self-education is a vital task. There is a plethora of websites where excellent independent analysis is freely available. The Glasgow University Media Group and Medialens, for example, offer incisive exposure of mainstream media coverage with the latter encouraging supporters directly to challenge instances of misreporting. Other organisations such as Indymedia and Schnews offer alternative media analysis and information on campaigning. A new organisation has recently been set up in the academic world, called the Network of Scholars of International Politics and International Relations (NASPIR), which brings together analysts writing critically on international issues, to share information and to see research as an element in social change.
Then there are organisations working in particular sectors, such as: Justice not Vengeance and Occupation Watch, for Iraq; the website Znet, for international issues and US foreign policy; PR Watch and the Institute for Public Accuracy, for the publicrelations industry and disinformation; Corporate Europe Observatory, for the power and lobbying of corporations; Tapol for Indonesia and the Colombian Solidarity Campaign for Colombia; Campaign Against the Arms Trade, for arms exports; Focus on the Global South, Third World Network and the World Development Movement, for development and global economic issues. There are also excellent magazines such as Frontline, Z Magazine, Third World Resurgence, Lobster, and Red Pepper. And of course there are numerous outstanding journalists and analysts, often collected on the Znet site.
I believe that one of the biggest challenges of all lies in more people making the shift from being 'liberal' to 'radical', to increase the weight of pressure for fundamental change. It still amazes me how many people in NGO circles, where I have often worked, retain essentially liberal outlooks – prepa
red to accept that reform within the existing system is the only required, or possible, strategy and often barely aware of the ideological role of the mainstream media. Governments are often still viewed in good faith and their public claims accepted, rather than being automatically dismissed or even questioned, as I think should be the default position. This outlook is based partly on lack of knowledge, which is not surprising given the silence of academics and mainstream media reporting. It may be partly due to fears of the consequences at the workplace of adopting a more 'radical' perspective.
But the liberal outlook can also be due to disbelief that fundamental change is possible – a self-fulfilling prophecy. In fact, fundamental change benefiting ordinary people is happening all over the world, at the community, national and global levels. At the community level there are lots of extraordinary initiatives to promote social and environmental improvements. At the global level, the past decade has seen unprecedented radical protest and organisation against global economic liberalisation, from Seattle to Cancun. This global movement has notched up many successes – stopping the Multinational Agreement on Investment, forcing some change at the World Bank and achieving cancellation of some developing-country debts. It needs to go further and translate into influencing policy-making across the board, and ultimately to transform domestic societies generally and global policymaking to become people-centred; no small task.
In my view, many civil society agencies, and especially the charitable NGOs, share the blame for reinforcing the liberal mindset of their supporters by pressing only for mild reform of government policies. Although their work is vital, such organisations also fail to tell their supporters about the systematic responsibility of the British government in, say, poverty or human-rights abuses, and often choose to welcome the mildest of government policy-reform proposals. Most organisations are frightened of criticising government policy beyond certain limits even when the facts warrant it – and these limits are often very narrow.
These organisations play the role of containing wider, radical opposition while appearing to be genuinely independent. It is no surprise that many receive considerable funding from the government, while senior managers often move in ministerial circles and are seduced by the illusion of having serious influence over government policy. Yet, in my experience, their liberal, reformist strategy derives not so much from the restrictions that come with receiving government money, but moreso from seeing their 'supporters' as funders more than campaigners; in other words, the primary aim is to grow and become bigger corporate entities, rather than to prioritise fundamental social change. This also holds them back from forming wider coalitions for radical change.