And the
War-Scar goes to …
Welcome to the War-Scars … The 75th
Annual Hypocrisy Awards!
The War-Scar awards are held every year to
acknowledge the magnificient performances in the ever entertaining field of
hypocrisy. This year has seen some of the most brilliant performances of all
times by the most talented people in the industry.
Let us now celebrate their vision and dreams!
For the category of
…
BEST VISUAL
AND SOUND EFFECTS
The nominees are …
1.
BBC
2.
CNN
3.
Al Jazeera
4.
US Military Press Briefing
The invasion of Iraq added a new dimension to
conventional war reporting with the concept of embedded journalists emerging.
But what information do they give us? We see US troops constantly on the move
through sandy deserts. We marvel at reporters with disheveled clothes and dirty
faces giving us their view about the "difficulties" of war. (Honestly
speaking, do they have to shout and run out of breath like that?) We see
selective coverage of US soldiers waving to little giggling children.
And of course, the unending bombardment of Baghdad,
which trivializes the war into a spectacle of bright fireworks. The horrors of
war are sanitised and special effects glamourized to reduce war to
entertainment. Viewers watch Baghdad burning forgetting that beneath those
columns of smoke and mountains of rubble lie charred men, crushed women and
mutilated bodies of children.
And the War-Scar goes to … The US Military Press
Briefing!! For their absolutely pointless satellite visuals of Iraqi buildings
being bombarded, demonstrating the wonders of "precision" bombing by
the coalition forces. So named for the "precision" with which they
struck down British helicopters in various incidents of friendly fire and blew
up two crowded market places in Baghdad nowhere near any military targets. But
the US military does everything in style. These press briefings are given from
their $200,000 war-briefing studio in Doha exclusively designed by a Hollywood
designer.
Let's move over to our next category …
BEST FOREIGN
LANGUAGE FILM
The nominees are …
1.
"The
French Connection" from France
2.
"Doppelganger"
from Germany
3.
"Nu
Zayat, Nu Pagadi" from Russia
4.
"Kaho
Naa … War Hai" from India
France has been cheered by many for opposing the
war, yet its hypocrisy runs as deep as America's. Force is always the last
resort it proclaimed in the UN. Then why is the French Army being deployed so
constantly in former French colonies that leaves us wondering whether French
Colonialism ever ended. If force is indeed the last resort, then why did France
destroy the unarmed Greenpeace ship, Rainbow Warrior, that protested against
French nuclear explosions in the Pacific?
Germany has also protested in the UN about regime
change in Iraq. Yet Germany above all stoked the break-up of Yugoslavia,
recognizing different segments as different countries. France and other
European countries followed suit. This led to a horrible sectarian war that
killed over 200,000 people. Regime change in Yugoslavia killed more than would
ever die in the Iraq conflict, and France and Germany cannot escape the blame.
Russia has violated all civil rights and bombed
Chechnya killing thousands. And yet they swoon at the thought of violence in
Iraq. Our motherland India is not far behind. We say that the UN should
sanction any war on Iraq. But did we ask for UN permission for our 1971 war
with Pakistan? No! It was a purely unilateral action.
These four countries have stuck steadfastly to the
theme of our Awards Ceremony - Hypocrisy. And that is why for the first time in
War-Scar history we have joint winners!
And the War-Scar goes to France, Germany, Russia and
India for using commendable double-talk in their diplomatic efforts.
Behind every successful man is a woman. And behind
every unsuccessful man is his lackey to cushion him. The War-Scars never fail
to acknowledge these brave souls. Our next category is …
BEST ACTOR IN
A SUPPORTING ROLE
And the nominees are …
1.
Tony Blair in "The Blair-Bush
Project"
2.
Mohammed Saeed Al-Sahaf in "An Officer and a
Spokesman"
3.
Brigadier-General Vincent
Brooks in "The Thin Red
Line"
Nelson Mandela dismissed him as the Foreign Minister
of the United States of America. Maybe Tony Blair does not deserve the title of
"Lackey of the US" that is attatched to him. Maybe he is being
deluded by the Americans (ever hungry for support) into joining a war they
claim is being fought on moral grounds. Maybe he is just doing what he thinks
is right - sending forces into Iraq for their liberation. Maybe the British are
not driven by narrow self-interest, unlike the Americans. (This can be seen by
their strong call for UN involvement in Iraq after the war). I guess one can
never really be sure, can they?
On paper, the British would be able to handle the
Iraqis better than the Americans, both on the battlefront as well as off it.
Handling the terrorism in Ireland has given them enough experience at urban and
guerrilla warfare. And the recent reports of embedded reporters suggest that
while the Americans are going around handling civillians roughly, the British
have come in after them to clean up their mess. British soldiers are more
courteous and genuinely friendly (not just photo-op friendly like the
Americans). I recently read reports of a football match being organised between
British troops and Iraqi civillians near the town of Basra, where fighting is
still going on (The British were beaten 9-3, by the way).
Mohammed Saeed Al-Sahaf, the dynamic and energetic
Information Minister of Iraq, has certainly caught everyone's eye. In a war
where both the parties have recognised the role of the media as a crucial
weapon, Al-Sahaf has managed to weild it to it's full potential. He makes up
for Saddam's absence by addressing the media personally almost everyday.
Dressed in a smart military suit and spewing propaganda in his halting English,
he projects an imposing, yet grandfatherly presence.
And he is never short on rhetoric. He once projected
the lengthy American supply line as a "500 km snake", which Iraq
would "cut up into little pieces". Drawing a parallel with Vietnam he
once stated, "People say Iraq cannot do a Vietnam because there are no
trees and bushes. Then let our buildings be our trees and our streets be our
bushes". And he has absolutely no qualms when it comes to using strong
abusive language against the coalition.
Our last nominee for this category is Brig-Gen
Vincent Brooks. A common sight at US military press briefings, Brig-Gen Brooks
more often than not ends up deputising for the commander of the US forces,
General Tommy Franks. These press briefings rigorously follow a well-defined
pattern. First the satellite photos and visuals of Iraqi targets being bombed
are shown, with little blue arrows highlighting the American military
precision. Then there is a briefing about the position of the ground forces and
military personnel in Iraq. This briefing is so superficial that there is
almost nothing there that the journos don't already know from their embedded
counterparts.
What follows in the Q&A Session is a classic
example of American spin in action. All uncomfortable questions are neatly
sidestepped, without any attempts of even masking the appearance that they are
being sidestepped. All other questions very conveniently lead to the same
statements being repeated - How close the coalition forces are to toppling
Saddam … How Iraqi soldiers are not following the conventions of warfare … How
civillian casualites cannot be avoided … And of course, how Saddam plans to use
chemical weapons once the coaltion troops cross the "thin red line".
And the War-Scar goes to … Mohammed Al-Sahaf!! … for his outrageous claims that the
coalition forces were 160 kms away from Baghdad, when they were on the
outskirts of its airport … and that they were repeating what was done in the
movie "Wag the Dog"!
For our next award, we have unanimously chosen the
winner, as the others don't hold a candle to this guy when it comes to
script-writing …
BEST WRITER
(ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY)
Donald
Rumsfeld for
his script in the movie "One flew past the Republican Guard"
It was the dream script. Shock and Awe tactics of a
massive bombardment of the Iraqi capital would "decapitate" the
leadership. Saddam and his sons would be killed by the very first bombs to hit
Baghdad. An ultra light and sleek military unit would rush to Baghdad in a
blitzkreig move to take over the city. On their way they would bypass all other
cities, whose streets will be thronged with crowds with flowers cheering their
liberators. Iraqi soldiers would surrender by the thousands, unwilling to
engage the most technically superior military force on earth.
Within Baghdad, there would be an uprising against
the Baath party leaders and the troops would enter and install their own
government. The world would hail the triumph of democracy and other rogue
nations would tremble in fear. And contracts galore for our firms back home
(paid, of course, by the Iraqi oil).
But somewhere, something went wrong. Saddam and his
sons survived and showed their resilience. There were no flowers to greet the
coalition soldiers, only bullets. Stiff Iraqi resistance staged guerrilla
attacks on the military supply lines. By the second week the coalition forces
could not claim that even one town was totally under their control. Aid was
delayed, and when it did come, it's distribution was a disaster best left
forgotten. The weather went against them. And numerous cases of friendly fire
and Iraqi civillians dying by the hundreds did not help the coalition cause one
bit.
One crucial miscalculation by Rumsfeld was his
strong belief that Iraqi troops were just waiting to surrender and civillians
just dying to carry arms against their oppressors. Here he made the mistake of
listening to his regional sources from Iraq's neighbouring countries, and
(supposedly) overruled his generals back in Washington, who insisted on the use
of heavy decisive force. Rumsfeld is a great fan of technology, and devised
this new plan to override the existing "archaic" plans for warfare in
Iraq.
I don't know why the American's think that patriotism
is an American patent. Do they honestly think that no other country in the
world can have nationalist feelings? Do they think that any country would
welcome invading troops from another nation, culture and religion with open
arms? Do they think that they can win the "hearts and mind battle" by
pounding their hometowns with bombs and mortars? By murdering their relatives
and friends by the hundreds?
And they wonder why the rest of the world despises
them.
The news networks have scored big time in this
year's War-Scar ceremony. Let's take a look at our next category …
BEST
DOCUMENTARY FILM
1. Western
News Networks for "
The Good, The Bad and The Embedded"
2. Arabic
News Networks for
"The Sound of Rhetoric"
To say that the media is biased is a gross understatement. The mere fact journalists are so enmeshed with the military makes it difficult for them to think objectively. Obviously, if your safety is in the hands of soldiers you will be unwilling to criticise them. Moreover, the coalition military machinery now has a very convenient tool to spread "desirable" bits of information.
Consider the following statements, released by the
western media (fed by military leaders), which were ultimately proven wrong.
1.
Saddam
Hussein was killed after the first bombs hit Baghdad
2.
The
town of Basra and Umm Qasr were captured and under the control of coalition
forces two days into the war
3.
There
was an uprising against the Iraqi regime in Basra
4.
An
Iraqi General was captured by the coalition forces
One CNN reporter even referred to the advance of the
coalition troops in the first person plural - "we". The BBC and CNN
correspondents try their best to make a mockery of press statements released by
the Iraqi leaders. Sometimes they deliberately repeat the same phrases in the
broken English used by Iraqi leaders. And more often they put their statements
in quotes, questioning their very credibility. For example - The Iraqi
Government says that "large quantities" of arms were recovered.
And not very far behind is Al Jazeera television
giving the pro-Iraqi angle of the war. It proudly showcases American prisoners
of war and injured Iraqis. Civilians in hospitals are focussed on to arouse
sympathy the world over. There are visuals of Iraqis dancing around Coalition
helicopters supposedly shot down by peasants. A few days back two Kenyan truck
drivers who were part of a team delivering aid to a town were captured and
paraded on Iraqi television, which claimed they were British soldiers.
Two streams of information - One talking about the
"American advance towards liberating the suppressed Iraqi people" and
the other talking about the "Fierce Iraqi resistance against the infidel
invaders". This war just does not permit us to get a full or real picture,
mainly because the coverage looks so vulnerable to regional interests. It's
true that war reporting cannot be totally objective, but it can at least be
humanist.
'Factoid' was the term coined in the Vietnam War to
desrcibe the phenomenon of a lie being repeated loudly and long enough to be
accepted as the truth. But the audience is far more cynical than it used to be.
It is no longer willing to buy the official line, all too frequently parroted
by the mass media.
The Academy has decided to award this War-Scar to an
un-nominated group - the Web-logs or Blogs, as they are more popularly called.
People are increasingly turning to this alternative source of information on
the net. 'Embedded' journalism is finding it's counter in 'embunkered'
reportage.
Blogs are self-styled chroniclers who keep weblogs
on the net. They can be written by one person or many, written in diary style
and are complete with typos. This phenomenon started around 9/11 and has grown
into the Next Big Thing during this war. Blogs could be civilians from the war
zone, former mainstream journalists (now independent), aid workers, and just
about anybody who has a sharp personal opinion on global events like the war.
We move to our next category, where one actor has
broken all previous records by being nominated in five different movies for the
same category!
BEST ACTOR IN
A LEADING(?) ROLE
George Bush Jr. in Gulf Wars Episode II - Attack of the Clown
George Bush
Jr. in Exterminator II - Judgement Day
George Bush
Jr. in Honey, I blew up Iraq
George Bush
Jr. in West Pride Story
George Bush
Jr. in Dictator and I
I had nothing against that guy. He can't take the
blame for cogenital stupidity. But when that stupidity is directly responsible
for creating a totally avoidable and uncalled for disaster, it's time to draw
the line. HOW did someone like HIM get elected to lead the most powerful (if
not moral) nation on earth? It does'nt say much about the people who voted him
in. Says even lesser for the system that allowed this to happen.
I have a strong feeling that President Bush is a big
fan of the movie Chicago. He too believes that you can get away with murder if
you just dazzle the world enough. Most Americans remember only that which is
dished out by their administration and retailed by their electronic media run
by large corporations. It was precisely because Bin Laden had not been captured
or killed long after the end of the Afghanistan campaign that Bush tried to
sublimate Bin Laden into Saddam Hussein. This was very obvious on the first
commemoration of 9/11. The spin-doctors of the White House have done such an
effective job that a majority of the Americans now believe that more than half
of the hijackers on September 11, 2001 were Iraqis!
What ideals of democracy are they trying to
propagate? Rounding up anti-war protestors, finger printing entire communities,
pressuring TV channels to take a partisan view, America under George Bush is
doing all it can to curb domestic civil rights - and ironically in the name of
protecting freedom and liberty. Susan Sarandon, Michael Moore, and Madonna have
been at the receiving end of things these last few days because of their
anti-war stance. Peter Arnett has been labeled unpatriotic - just because he
said out his mind on Iraqi television.
This is great material for a debate - For a citizen,
which is of greater value - freedom or patriotism?
And we come to the final award for the evening …
BEST FILM
The nominees are …
1.
UN-faithful
2.
Lawmakers of Arabia
3.
Iraqi Pie
4.
Rebels Without a Clue
1.
UN-faithful
Following the US and British
unilateral action in the Gulf, every organisation in the world has experienced
serious rifts. Be it the NATO, the Arab League, OPEC, the European Union or the
NAM. But none more than the United Nations, whose resolutions and directives US
openly defied to do what it felt like doing. What purpose does a multilateral
body serve if it is not able to stop an illegal war from taking place?
There are many who see this
as the signal for the demise of the UN.There was a time a few decades back that
the League of Nations was disbanded and the nations of the world came together
to form the United Nations from it's ashes. Ironically it was the US and
Britain that made this happen. Now I believe the world is ready for a third
generation of league of nations to do what the UN could not. But this would
only be possible in a truly multipolar world, one which is not dictated by
bullies with might.
2.
Lawmakers of Arabia
Bush and his pro-Israeli and
power-hungry idealogues have some fancy plans for West Asia and it's people.
They are the latest example of those Westerners who feel they have to carry
"The White Man's Burden". They are currently focussing on the
countries that have or have had nuclear weapons programmes, namely the
"Axis of Evil" states - Iraq, Iran and North Korea.The fact that
Israel has over 400 nuclear weapons is yet to register with Washington.
The US-British invasion of
Iraq is rapidly converting Saddam Hussein into a kind of folk hero. This is
what he had always wanted - to be viewed as a champion of the Arab world. Till
the attack, he had very few supporters. All this had changed dramatically in
the span of a two weeks. Iraqi civillians are rallying around their leader.
Hundreds of civillians have been killed and injured. And not a single weapon of
mass destruction has so far been found to add credibility to the US claim.
The US venture in Iraq is a
major miscalculation not because US goals are incorrect, but because they are
being pursued the wrong way. There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam will be
removed, and the coalition forces will prevail in Baghdad. But would it really
be worth the enormous cost of the war? Not just in terms of innocent lives
being lost, but a whole nation of proud people being subjugated to the worst kind
of humiliation. The inflammation of Arab and Muslim sentiment will lead to
terrible 9/11-style terrorist attacks and more Bin Ladens being born every day
that this atrocity continues. It would only result in the creation of an
unbridgeable gap between the Muslim and the Non-Muslim world.
3.
Iraqi Pie
The coalition partners - The
US, Britain and Australia - are having a tough time deciding how to divide the
post-war Iraqi pie. Those who opposed the war - France, Germany and Russia -
are trying to ensure their firms are also part of the multi-billion dollar
contracts. The US, however, has taken it upto itself to become the sole
authority to grant work. Britain does want a larger UN participation in
post-war Iraq, and they think anything else will be illegal.
But so far everything seems
to be going to well connected US firms. The first contract (worth $500 million)
to put out oil fires went to Kellogg Brown and Root, a subsidiary of
Halliburton, headed by current vice-president Dick Cheney. US oil majors Exxon-Mobil
and Chevron-Texaco also stand to gain from a coalition victory. US firms have
also been favoured for reconstruction work. In February, USAID secretly
"invited" five US corporations to bid for eight contracts worth $900
million. They clarified that this was done since "speed is of the essence
in this whole thing."
Ellis Environment Group,
which clears debris and removes unexploded bombs, has an "open ended"
contract worth $1.2 billion with the Pentagon, which is soon expected to
double. Companies like Kraft, which sells dehydrated meals, are set to enjoy a
boom as humanitarian effort gets under way. US arms exports may zoom once the
war is over. Post Gulf War I, they doubled to $20 billion in 1993, compared to
the previous year.
There is absolutely no doubt
that the operation against Iraq was undertaken for imperialistic reasons. And
they try to convince the rest of the world that they want to "liberate the
Iraqi people from the terrible yoke of oppression". It does'nt matter if
there are dozens of other countries in the world under similar tyrannies.
Doesn't matter if other countries have more links to terrorism than a strongly
secular Iraq. Does'nt matter if there exist other rogue countries possessing
not just chemical and biological weapons, but nuclear capability too.
What matters is that Iraq
has the second largest oil reserve in the world. And if you can't steal their
oil directly, destroy their country first and then drain their resources to pay
US firms in the name of "reconstruction".
4.
Rebels Without a Clue
Millions of anti-war
protestors the world over took to the streets on February 15th. But
even this opposition to the war is laced with hypocrisy. Where were they when
wars without US involvement produced massive slaughter in Africa, Asia and
Yugoslavia? Why was there no political pressure on European and US governments
to stop the horrendous killings in Rwanda or Yugoslavia? Many protested when
Bush Sr. went into Iraq in 1991. But when he withdrew, and Saddam Hussein
slaughtered 50,000 Shias in southern Iraq, they staged no protest.
The "international
peace movement" is, by and large, anti-American. In theory they oppose
violence by anybody, but they stage massive rallies only when the US gets
violent. Journalists, academics and moralists yawn with boredom when the Hutus
slaughtered 800,000 Tutsis, but explode with outrage if the US send in its
marines to Iraq and kills 1000 civillians. US hypocrisy in Iraq is easily
explained by narrow self interest, but what about the hypocrisy of those who
oppose this war?
I've been confused about something for quite some
time now. How do we determine if something is true? Does something become true
if the largest number of people believe it to be true? Or is truth what the
most powerful person believes? Or maybe there is no real truth in the absolute
sense of the word. Maybe opinions, views and beliefs cannot be true or false in
a binary fashion. Maybe everything falls somewhere in between, in a grey area
with varying shades of black and white.
I harbour no love for what Saddam is doing in Iraq,
and I also oppose what the US is doing to Iraq. That is why I can't say if I am
"against" the war or "for it". What I can say confidently
is that I am against all the hypocrisy surrounding everything related to the
war.