Sunday, January 04, 2015

Reasons and Pretexts

Another year begins with more of the same: chaos, corruption, opportunism, cowardice and indifference on the part of the State. 

The issues raised in this blog are still unresolved, and the prospects are looking a little more uncertain – if we take into account the fact that 2015 is an election year. 
In this case as in many others, there is a web of reasons and pretexts behind the official recklessness. 

Many times we’ve been informally told that the reason for burying alive the matter of the formal inquiries into three maritime disasters, was pressure from the US administration, pressure which was unbearable to the British authorities. This almost reasonable sounding justification, meant to give official wrongdoing the immunity of an act of God, has, however, two major faults: first, it is partly a cop-out and, secondly, it has got nothing to do with us – that is we shouldn’t care a toss about who is pressuring whom. 

Let me explain: the terms of our relationship with the British state that we are subjects of - in the context of the disclosures that we have made about the Gaul RFI and the other official cover-ups - do not include any deference to the whims of a foreign government. 
We have the duty to be loyal, pay taxes and obey the law of our land in exchange for various rights and legal protections that are conferred on any British citizen. This is a bond based on mutual obligations. Even the medieval vassalage was a reciprocal relationship. What is more, equality before the law has been the basic principle of citizenship since Ancient Greece. Since ancient times, a citizen has been understood as a person free to act by law, free to ask and expect the law’s protection. In today’s Britain, however, this no longer seems to be the case. 

The claim that a foreign country can impose the suspension of the rule of law here – and do so for no reason other than to assist corrupt political allies – be it a pretext (1) or a reason (2) - has and should have nothing to do with the victims of sea tragedies or with us. 

And, anyway, what would happen if Britain withstood such pressures? Would we be invaded or our foreign trade sabotaged? We don’t think so. It might have some tit-for-tat repercussions, such as unpleasant things being revealed in the press about our government, prominent politicians (‘revelations’ similar to those in the child abuse scandal etc. pursued with similar frenzy) and even members of the royal family, but these are not legitimate reasons to suspend the law. 

It is therefore far more likely, we suspect, that our government, with the 2015 general election in mind, wants to please powerful lobbies and donors and to avoid any skeletons being dragged out of the cupboards by well-connected political enemies (LINK). I don't think there is one person in public life who cannot be blackmailed. To these ends, the British authorities are prepared to ignore crime and – so as to give the culprits added satisfaction - aid and abet in the continued victimisation of whistleblowers and witnesses. 


(1) It is already known that former Labour government figures have been in the habit of asking the US government to oppose disclosures about their crimes (see the official interventions prior to the publication of the Torture Report)

(2) The US government may try to solve their foreign policy problems by dispensing sweeteners, for the sake of unity, at others' expense.

No comments: