LONDON, 20 March 2003 — I left the British Liberal Party about 43 years ago, partly because I was more interested in socialism, partly out of impatience. I longed for a forthright opinion about anything at all, but the leading Liberals of the time were paralyzed by prevarication. Their politics were plainly this, tinged perpetually with that. They set out firmly on one course, only to be seduced and fascinated by another one.
The Liberal leader at that time was Jo Grimond, an engaging MP for the far north of Scotland. Times change, and the Liberal party changed into the Liberal Democrats and their leader is Charles Kennedy, an engaging MP for the far north of Scotland. At a conference last week Kennedy set out his policy on war with Iraq. He was, he said, “not impressed” with the arguments for war. Indeed he had taken part in the mass anti-war demonstration on Feb. 15. He was, in short, a 100 percent against war — until it started. Then he promised, like all patriotic politicians, to throw the full force of his party behind “our boys” in Iraq.
This political double-think seems to have struck down all sorts of people in high places. They see no case for war. They know that the war was planned long ago in the Pentagon and the White House, and that all the wrangling in the UN has been a cynical irrelevance. They know that their arguments, and those of millions of people all over the world, have been contemptuously ignored by their elected leaders. But as soon as “our fighting men” go into action, they argue, all opposition should cease.
This seems to me utterly perverse. An unjust war doesn’t matter very much until it happens. The fact that it happens, especially when so many people are against it, does not suddenly justify it. Every day of slaughter strengthens the case against it, and the urgency of the need to protest against it. As for supporting “our boys”, there is one sure way of saving their lives or their health from another ghastly round of Gulf War syndrome. In the 14 years I worked for the Daily Mirror, there were two British wars, in the Falklands and in the Gulf. In both, especially in the Falklands, the editorial line of the paper, at least before the war started, was against the war, or at least skeptical of the case for it. When the bombs started to drop and the slaughter started, the mood changed. The entire apparatus of the newspaper was thrown behind our boys. The news desk, the night desk, the picture desk were overcome with war fever. Worst of all, the paper’s coverage became indistinguishable from that of the Sun.
In recent weeks, the Mirror coverage of the war against Iraq has been outstanding. May it continue like that throughout the war, and after it. Elsewhere in the media, especially in the BBC, there are worrying signs of knee-jerk support for the government. Last Wednesday, for instance, the Stop the War Coalition organized a People’s Assembly in Central Hall opposite parliament. Around 1,500 elected delegates attended, sent there by schools, colleges, trade unions, workplaces and community organizations. On the platform throughout the day were Labour MPs, trade union leaders, religious leaders from many faiths and, more importantly, groups of voluble schoolchildren.
The place swarmed with journalists and TV cameras, including BBC2’s Newsnight. Here was a perfect opportunity to get away from prattling pundits and give public voice to the looming anti-war majority. But no. Not a single frontline BBC program that evening could find time for the assembly.
