Published at UK Watch.

Sigh – again with the “shared values” routine. Providing we don’t go into too much detail, ‘values’ can mean anything to anyone – it is a concept so amorphous and vacuous as to be effectively meaningless, a quality that has made it a regular theme in official political discourse. Domestically, talk of ‘values’ functions to distract voters from the material policies being carried out in their names, the nature of the institutions that generate them and the uncomfortable fact that the major political parties are fundamentally in agreement over both.The same is true on the world stage. As Gordon Brown embarks on his first American odyssey, re-igniting the familiar debate about the nature of the relationship between the United States and Britain, the reliable old establishment ‘values’ workhorse has been dusted off once more to distort and confuse the discussion. According to Brown, our pan-Atlantic brotherhood is founded on “common values of liberty, opportunity and the dignity of the individual”. All very nice, of course. Liberty, freedom, justice, dignity, love…it’s enough to make Voldemort himself (yeah, I’ve succumbed) collapse into a fit of the warm fuzzies. Claps on the back all round, chaps – aren’t we just the best?

Amidst all the self-adulation, some important facts about our actual, concrete role in the world may be lost. For example, even as Gordon Brown waxed tedium about a “battle of ideas” in Iraq, Oxfam released a report (.pdf) showing that eight million Iraqis, roughly a third of the population, are in need of emergency aid such as water, sanitation, food and shelter. 15% of Iraqis cannot regularly afford to eat, 70% do not have adequate water supplies and 28% of children are malnourished – shockingly, this represents a significant increase from the pre-invasion child malnutrition rate of 19%, when Iraqis were still suffering under the U.S.-led sanctions regime – described by former UN humanitarian coordinator Dennis Halliday as “genocidal” – which led to the deaths of approximately half a million children under five. More than 11 per cent of newborn babies were born underweight in 2006, compared with 4 per cent in 2003.

According to the UN, over four million Iraqis have fled their homes, in what is the fastest-growing refugee crisis in the world. According to recent reports, the situation for the refugees is so bad that as many as 50,000 women and girls have been forced into prostitution for survival. Syria has absorbed roughly 1.4 million refugees, with Jordan admitting 700,000 and Egypt and Lebanon taking in over 150,000 each. In contrast, the two countries that bear primary responsibility for this humanitarian catastrophe have done little to help, with the U.S. admitting less than 1,000 Iraqi refugees and the UK not only failing to match even this pathetic record, but actually forcibly deporting dozens of refugees back to Iraq. The attitude of the British government towards the refugee crisis they helped create has been described by Amnesty International as “truly shameful”, while Refugees International has labeled the U.S. response “inadequate“, noting that the amount of money set aside by the Bush administration to assist the two million internally displaced Iraqis amounts to a mere $17 million, or just over $3 per person per year. Indeed, despite the worsening conditions in Iraq, U.S. emergency humanitarian assistance decreased from $128.08 million in 2005 to just $43.1 million in 2006, whilst humanitarian aid from the UK dropped from $19.87 million in 2005 to $9.5 million last year (Oxfam: Table 2, p. 25).

Who gives a shit about “values” when this is the kind of suffering we are inflicting upon people around the world? The level of indifference displayed towards these monumental atrocities is sickening. At yesterday’s Camp David summit, Brown apparently attempted to shift the discussion away from Iraq and towards ‘less divisive’ issues like Darfur, a tactic that has been adopted by many pro-war Western intellectuals. After all, talking about our crimes is always a bit of a downer, and anyway, people with our “values” just don’t do that sort of thing. As Patrick Cockburn writes,

“while the US and Britain are willing to express sympathy for the plight of refugees in Africa, they are ignoring, or playing down, a far greater tragedy which is largely of their own making.”

Noam Chomsky has written that whenever you hear politicians start talking about ‘values’, reach for your wallet. He’s right, but in this case the consequences of failing to do so will be measured not in money but in blood. Who we are is best determined not by what some crook loudly proclaims us to be, but by what we actually do. So just ignore all the inanities about our “shared destiny” and “values” and stay resolutely focused on what really counts: ending the crimes for which we are responsible, paying reparations to the victims and holding the perpetrators to account. And then, by all means, hold as many orgies of self-satisfaction as you want – hell, you can even establish a national holiday, ‘Values Week’, where we all get a week off work to go around congratulating each other for being so goddamned awesome. But, to put it mildly, we ain’t there yet.



7 Responses to “Nice curtain, shame about the view”  

  1. Amidst all the self-adulation, some important facts about our actual, concrete role in the world may be lost

    I couldn’t agree more, if you’ll pardon the plug:

    “Of all the warm words clouding Britain’s “partnership of purpose” with America, four rang especially hollow this week: freedom, justice and human rights…”

  2. Thanks – excellent post (shame about some of the comments it received on HP, particularly from “Mike”).

    See also this from Tom Porteous, the London director of Human Rights Watch:

    ‘When he meets President Bush today, Mr Brown can deal with the issues of values and counter-terrorism in three different ways.

    He can drop the talk of values altogether and have a businesslike conversation about US-UK cooperation in counter-terrorism based on a narrow assessment of the UK’s national interests. That’s the diplomatic option.

    He can say that his relationship with Bush is based on shared values. That’s the head-in-the-sand option. It would send a signal not only that Mr Brown has not, after all, learned from the mistakes of his predecessor, but also that the UK’s complicity in abuses carried out by the US government in the name of counter-terrorism will continue.

    Or Mr Brown can speak up for the values that underpin the special relationship and point out that the US administration’s practices of torture, disappearances, and arbitrary detention are wrong and misguided and are losing us the struggle against Islamic extremism. That’s the principled and courageous option.’

  3. Thanks Jamie. Seems he got less grief in the comments… I was rather disappointed with Mike’s limp effort, I have to confess. Although given that the Government’s QC can’t think of any more arguments, let alone any convincing ones, I’d have been shocked if Mike came up with something debatable.

    Straying into the body language bullshit for a moment, I watched PM Brown on TV for the first time on Monday and was surprised by how different he seemed in his deportment to the figure I remembered from the last rolling news coverage I watched months ago. I remember reading some waffle from Newsnight about how he was going to relax into the top job etcetc, but it’s quite alarming to see strikingly he relishes the power he now nominally wields. Watching him strut his stuff made me think, albeit totally inconclusively. I think there’s something to say about it somehow, but not just for waffle purposes. Not sure I fancy a crack at an armchair psychoanalysis column, but I’d like to read one.

  4. Yeh, it might be interesting, but what seems to be happening now is that journalists are focusing on shallow, trivial things like ‘body language’ and the type of trousers Brown wears in order to portray a man who is a real change from what’s gone before, something really different. In fact, in terms of policy, Brown was as big a driving force behind New Labour as Blair was. The two men are from the same mould, and their policies are fundamentally the same. So in order to give the impression of a sea-change, people like Andrew Rawnsley and Nick Robinson have to divert attention to trivialities, because to focus on the policies would lead to a very different conclusion.

    (I’ve never had time for the likes of Rawnsley and Robinson, anyway. It seems obvious from their reporting that in order to enjoy access to the big names they’ve had to either give up on being confrontational and adversarial, or else they were already infatuated with power to begin with.)

  5. in order to enjoy access to the big names they’ve had to either give up on being confrontational and adversarial, or else they were already infatuated with power to begin with

    I don’t think either is quite how it is. Instead I think they think it’s their duty to tell us what powerful people are saying about what they’re doing and thinking and they find it hard to fathom why malcontents think this isn’t what they’re supposed to be doing. Sure, they seem to get a kick out of being in The Thick Of It, but the idea of them deliberately pulling punches seems far-fetched. The infatuation rings more true, but it’s not like Brown’s – instead they get to be there without having to be part of the programme. The illusion(s) of power without the responsibility to do much more than channel it. But their output isn’t dictated directly and they get ever so excited about confronting people about trivia (e.g. Robinson bantering with Bush about what a tricky customer he is). Still, I don’t think we should assume they should all be revolutionaries either. Factual accuracy is what matters, not reverse propaganda.

  6. I don’t think it’s a straight choice between reverse propaganda and factual accuracy. I think real journalism should not simply relay what power says, but should also try to put that in context, and not just take it at face value. Certainly Rawnsley and Robinson do that sometimes, but it just seems from their reporting that they are too happy with having the contacts/access they have (being in ‘The Thick Of It’, as you put it) to be anything like objective journalists (and I use the term as T.D. Allman did – I read a couple of your past blog posts yesterday!). That doesn’t mean that they necessarily deliberately pull punches – although I don’t think that’s so far-fetched – but rather that for them to have got to where they are today, in terms of access to people with power, it was probably necessary for them to be generally sympathetic to the basic values/goals/role of the people and institutions they are supposed to be monitoring. One result of this, for example, is that a Rawnsley analysis of current political affairs reads like a soap opera, with intrigues and bickerings and petty fights, and so on. Now, that’s all well and good, but this kind of micro-focus on the squabbles and rivalries in politics runs the danger of missing out on the bigger picture. You can’t see the wood for trees.

    So for example, see this recent Rawnsley article on Brown vs. Cameron. It’s basically just a political gossip column, but inflated with the sense of importance usually associated with actual news. I think the first comment it got in reply, by one ‘tastymcfadden’, pretty much hits the nail on the head, as do a couple of others further down (e.g. from ‘chris32uk’).

  7. The Stop the War Coalition has evidently noted the same gap between Brown’s lovely rhetoric about “values” and the UK’s actual role in reality:

    ‘1) IRAQ AND BROWN’S ‘SHARED VALUES’
    Gordon Brown told George Bush this week that Britain has a “shared destiny” with the United States” founded on “shared values”. Even as Brown spoke, the consequences of those “shared values” in Iraq were spelt out in horrific detail by a report from Oxfam and over 100 other NGOs.
    * 43% of Iraqis are in absolute poverty;
    * 28% of Iraqi children are malnourished;
    * 32% of internally displaced persons who need food rations can’t get them;
    * 70% of Iraqis don’t have adequate water supplies;
    * 80% don’t have effective sanitation;
    * 4 million Iraqis are in dire need of humanitarian assistance
    * 11% of new born babies are underweight.
    (SEE http://tinyurl.com/2tkt3j)

    Unemployment in Iraq is running at over 50 per cent. Up to one million Iraqis have been killed over the past four years as a result the illegal US-UK invasion. Four million Iraqis — one seventh of the population — have been displaced from their homes, with two million fleeing the country. This is, as journalist Patrick Cockburn writes, “The greatest mass exodus of people ever in the Middle East and dwarfs anything seen in Europe since the Second World War.” (SEE http://tinyurl.com/ypvtmq)

    Eight British soldiers were killed in Iraq in July, supposedly in the cause of these same “shared values”, but in reality serving no purpose other than to give George Bush political cover for a war which over two thirds of the American people oppose, making Bush the most unpopular president in recent US history.

    Any hopes that Gordon Brown would distance himself from Tony Blair’s abject subservience to US foreign policy objectives were dashed when Brown confirmed that there was “no plan to withdraw British troops before the Iraqi army is deemed capable of maintaining security”, which is doublespeak for “no plans until George Bush says it’s ok”. Brown displayed his continuity with Blair’s war policies despite the government’s first official acknowledgement, in a report published recently by the Ministry of Defence, that there is little or no public support for the war in Iraq. (SEE http://tinyurl.com/3dhu6y)

    The people of Iraq want the foreign occupiers out of their country immediately, so they can be free to decide how they want to be governed and to control their own resources, not least the second largest reserves of oil in the world. The views of the Iraq majority were expressed this week by the captain of the Iraqi football team, following its victory in the Asian Cup, “I want America to go out. Today, tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow, but out. I wish the American people didn’t invade Iraq and hopefully it will be over soon.”

    The anti-war movement must maintain the pressure on Gordon Brown to make him respond to the values of the vast majority in this country who always opposed the illegal war in Iraq and who want all British troops brought home now. Similarly, it is essential that we continue to build the widest possible opposition to the “shared values” of Gordon Brown’s and George Bush, which promise only more war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the escalation of the arms race and intensified threats against Iran.’

    (from their latest newletter, released today).


Leave a Reply