This is an edited extract from Secret Affairs: Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam Mark Curtis The war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s was to mark the next phase in the development of global Islamic radicalism, building on the Islamic resurgence during the previous decade. Following the Soviet invasion of December 1979, tens of thousands of volunteers from […]
We don’t normally do movie reviews here at BSNews. In fact, we usually concentrate exclusively on geo-politics and foreign policy, steer clear of sports and let others cover gossip and popular culture. My co-ed occasionally reveals her anthropological fascination and ultimate exasperation with the insidious twins of celebrity culture and the advertising industry but for me, I avoid them both like the plague, I never watch TV and I wouldn’t know a Kardashian if one punched me in the face.
On the 15th anniversary of Iraq invasion, evidence remains overwhelming that war was illegal and a “crime of aggression”. Yet six Cabinet members were elevated to House of Lords, others to top international jobs. UK elite enjoys impunity for foreign wars. Far from paying any price, the British system has rewarded ministers for their fateful decision on Iraq
On January 8, Fiona Bruce introduced an item about Syria on BBC News at Ten with the phrase: ‘Syrian government forces, backed by Russia’. Why does BBC News not regularly use the phrase, ‘Saudi government forces, backed by the United States and the UK’ when reporting on bombs dropped on Yemen? The answer should be obvious.
Rather than indulging drum-beating hawks like Carter, politicians, journalists and anyone else really concerned with understanding and challenging British militarism might find in such places much more useful information and critical direction.
For the past 50 years, the essence of British strategy has been to ensure the UN’s failure to prevent or condemn Britain’s, or its allies’, acts of aggression.
It is no exaggeration to suggest that in the past century alone the UK has been at the forefront of the bloody industry that is modern war and has done everything possible to avoid and disrupt the peace. Barely a year has gone by since the end of the second world war when the British military were not fighting and killing in some far off country
Unless there is a serious challenge, Britain is set to increasingly promote a failed model of international trade that will impoverish developing countries still further. It will also likely pursue an aid strategy that supports corporations, neo-liberal economic objectives and wider British foreign policy.
Britain is on course to ignore human rights in its foreign policy even more than in the recent past. And, if recent speeches by military leaders are anything to go by, it is even threatening to increasingly use its global military power to secure its financial and economic interests.
Historian Mark Curtis cites some of the actions of successive British governments, barely mentioned by the corporate media, which go someway to understanding what makes Britain ‘great’.
Supporting the bombing of Yemen.
Arming Israel.
Occupying the Chagos Islands.
Supporting US aggression.
Arming Colombia.
Maintaining the global network of tax havens.
Outside of North Korea, speeches by political figures are rarely universally showered with adulation. So the mainstream media’s ravings in reaction to Hilary Benn’s speech to parliament on Syria are especially noticeable. Across the spectrum, the speech has been reported as ‘riveting’ (Guardian), ‘extraordinary’ (Mirror), ‘great’ (BBC News at 6, 3 December) and that of a ‘true leader’ (Telegraph). The […]
The more important story is that British governments, both Labour and Conservative, have, in pursuing the so-called national interest’ abroad, colluded for decades with radical Islamic forces, including terrorist organisations. They have connived with them, worked alongside them and sometimes trained and financed them, in order to promote specific foreign policy objectives. Governments have done so in often desperate attempts to maintain Britain’s global power in the face of increasing weakness in key regions of the world, being unable to unilaterally impose their will and lacking other local allies.
