A recent article by Michael MacKinley provides an accurate reflection on the (lack of) value placed on human life by those who propagate war. It brings to mind a statement of the past that, to paraphrase, states “a bayonette is a weapon with a working man on either end.”
Michael points to two salutary lessons that should be learned from past wars: i) idiosyncrasies or hubris, can overpower leaders in their decision making and ii) that allies are not necessarily friends and to identify with them can be an abdication of sovereign and ethical responsibility.
There are at least three important questions when analysing the decisions taken by the “representatives” of the people. These are the personalities and essential nature of the people making these decisions, their ideological and political persuasions and the third and far more important question is whose economic interest these people represent.
The first of these questions has been extensively dealt with. And there is a great deal of value in understanding who these people are because it does lead back to the question of why in some cases, such characteristics and traits are apparently supported (or perhaps ignored) by the societies they represent.
The second question is important as it addresses the form and content of information presented to the general population. An example being the glaring contradiction between the relative empathy applied through the mainly foreign owned and controlled media in Australia to different peoples based on their nationality, ethnicity and beliefs. This is particularly relevant to the war and genocide occurring in the Ukraine and Gaza. These characteristics of “other” people are effectively used to enhance or dull the general populations feelings of abhorrence and disgust with what is happening.
An extreme example of this is the (understandable and valid) emotional reaction to the death of a volunteer firefighter resulting from the attempt on Donald Trumps life in contrast to the coverage of the slaughter of people every day in the Ukraine and Gaza. And, the report on the very recent commitment of a further billions of dollars to the war in the Ukraine is treated as simply a strategic and perhaps necessary decision to protect the interests of ??????
The established media spend an inordinate amount of time and energy in focussing on the first two questions above. This will be the ongoing nature of the coverage in Australia of the impending US presidential election. It will be a constant contrast between the personalities of the two candidates and some superficial coverage of policy. The recent debate between Trump and Biden and its coverage exemplifies this misleading and dumbing-down approach.
It is difficult to disagree with what Albert Einstein pointed out in 1949, “…under existing conditions, private capitalists control, directly and indirectly the main sources of information (press, radio, education)”. “It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible for the individual citizen to make intelligent use of his political rights”.
The ownership and control referred to by Einstein has grown enormously since 1949 and has been centralised in a reducing number of media monopolies. Any serious focus on the policy issues become secondary. What can’t be ignored is that these media monopolise are owned by what represents an extremely small component of the general population. They are part of the extremely wealthy and represent the interests of their cohort.
Hence the third and most important question is just whose economic interests are represented by those advocating and propagating wars. Much of what is written when focussing on this question addresses the common political and ideological persuasions of the associates of the decision makers. This is no doubt an important consideration but only if it the leads to the question of what do these common political and ideological persuasions reflect about the power and economic interests of those involved. They obviously don’t represent the interests of people in general.
Apart from the immediate appalling genocide and suffering of the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, they provide untold, ongoing dislocation and impoverishment for the majority of the population.
The decisions to promulgate these wars are primarily about the control and distribution of current and future wealth and this is a defining characteristic of imperialism. It is necessary to clearly identify whose economic interests these wars are serving? This question applies to the decisions taken by the current leaders of NATO, the USA, Russia, China, and relevant proxies such as the Ukraine, Israel and potentially Australia.
As is pointed out in an article by Peter Hehir, “The left-right, barking mad, marching machine”, the issue of right vs left is a means of politically dividing people in terms of their willingness to accept or support ongoing conflicts and the ensuing loss of life. However, there is no right vs left if we are referring to the essential economic nature of the major countries involved in these conflicts. He describes Russia and China are basically capitalist economies, which they are.
The control and distribution of wealth then becomes a significant (if not the primary) issue. While this is understood in general terms by many who contribute to publications such as P&I, it needs much greater focus, ensuring the general population becomes aware of what is happening and do have the opportunity to make informed decisions.
It is very clear that the US and associated developed countries have been the major beneficiaries throughout the world since the second world war. It is precisely the US with the escalating military-industrial complex and its allies that have determined the nature of this development, through the “management” of countries using corruption, political and/or military subjugation. On a lesser scale, countries such as Russia have been involved in such subjugation.
In addressing these interests it is essential that people understand how countries and companies are enabled in the achievement of their economic interests. A great deal more attention is required if people are to understand how the political and ideological aspects are used to justify mass slaughter while obscuring whose interests they serve. This requires a willingness to be objective about the very nature of the capitalist economic system.
There is deliberate deception by both sides of politics in this country around the issues of climate change and the move from interoperability to interchangeability between American and Australian military capabilities. In relation to the second issue, as pointed out in a recent article in this publication, there is justification in seeing the AUKUS alliance (supported by both major parties) as including a move towards nuclear arms in this country. Nuclear war is a real possibility.
There is a difficult and pressing need to ensure the general public are fully informed.
Peter Allitt
Peter Allitt worked within the Victorian Education Department introducing the educational application of computers and information management.
Consulted to multiple private and public organisations across Australia around education, strategic planning, information management and organisational change.
Contributions to Pearls and Irritations
Your contribution will fund quality independent comment and analysis in Pearls and Irritations
Contribute
