Hare constructs the political machinations behind the Iraq war, the extremism and cynicism of the Bush administration and the pathetic Tony Blair, shown as a desperate leader determined to stay on the good side of Bush, whatever the cost. Hare has not simply constructed an anti-war piece (though the underlying tone is most certainly against the conflict), but rather looks at the backgrounds, motivations and lies spun by the major players.
Condoleezza Rice – played brilliantly by Leah Purcell in brightly coloured power suits, shoulder pads and almost robotic carelessness – is an academic ideologue, like so many in the American administration. No experience of war or its consequences (nor proper planning for the post invasion phase), Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Bush himself (a simple, quasi-religious idiot with savvy political skills) plan a “War on Terror” without any understanding of American power or its limitations, let alone legality.
When the play opened in London last year, the Guardian praised its insights (the paper even gathered “experts” to determine its accuracy). Hare does ask whether the ends justifies the means and comes down on the side of “no.” The facts allow no other answer.
Stuff Happens is moving and angry but has faults. Colin Powell is portrayed as the somewhat idealistic moral centre, determined to avoid war yet unsure how to achieve his aims. Sadly, his so-called idealism did not lead him to resign and his infamous presentation before the UN in February 2003 to “prove” the American case was a classic case of deception. His subsequent comments suggest that he probably knew this at the time or at least had major doubts over the intelligence he was sharing with the world. At one point in the play, he says of Saddam, “People keep asking, how do we know he’s got weapons of mass destruction? How do we know? Because we’ve still got the receipts.” Of course, those weapons never materialised.
Australia’s role in the invasion is mentioned in passing. A similar piece from an Australian perspective would be most welcome. Stephen Sewell, writer of the stunning “Myth, Propaganda and Disaster in Nazi Germany and Contemporary America”, said in 2003 that mainstream theatre spaces in Australia were unwilling to take risks on edgy political theatre. Most contemporary theatre produced by organisations such as the Sydney Theatre Company, he said, “lacked any social significance”, producing only ‘fruit-on-the-head’ theatre. “I am being blocked, have been for some time, because I don’t fit into their agendas, which is to reinforce their audience’s beliefs.”
As an irregular theatre-goer in Sydney, the distinct lack of contemporary, political commentary is striking (Hannie Rayson’s Two Brothers may be worthy but it’s as subtle as a sledge-hammer.)
Stuff Happens matters. The title refers to comments made by Rumsfeld in the face of widespread looting after the fall of Saddam. “Stuff happens … and it’s untidy, and freedom’s untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things.”
“The war, which started out as a demonstration of US strength as the world’s only superpower, has turned into a demonstration of weakness. Its 135,000-strong army does not control much of Iraq”, he writes.
Then the key analysis:
“The suicide bombing campaign in Iraq is unique. Never before have so many fanatical young Muslims been willing to kill themselves, trying to destroy those whom they see as their enemies. On a single day in Baghdad this month 12 bombers blew themselves up. There have been more than 500 suicide attacks in Iraq over the last year. It is this campaign which has now spread to Britain and Egypt. The Iraq war has radicalised a significant part of the Muslim world. Most of the bombers in Iraq are non-Iraqi, but the network of sympathisers and supporters who provide safe houses, money, explosives, detonators, vehicles and intelligence is home-grown.”
The London police are looking for a number of men allegedly behind last week’s attempted attacks. It’s an essential job and hopefully successful. This doesn’t alter the facts that an innocent man has been murdered. Phil Gomes explains what is at stake:
“Jean Charles de Menezes was undoubtedly a man of colour, so he now automatically comes under suspicion because of circumstance and the tenor of the times, and of course Jean Charles de Menezes will just be considered collateral damage as far as those who wish to tighten a noose around our civil liberties. They’ll say ‘but if he had nothing to fear he would still be alive’, but Jean Charles de Menezes as a man of the global south probably knew better than any of us that police with unlimited powers are something to be feared.”
We are seeing the birth of extra-judicial killings in the heart of Western cities. No longer hidden or kept secret by shadowy government officials, but committed under the mantra of “blame the terrorists.” London mayor Ken Livingstone misses the point entirely: “The police acted to do what they believed necessary to protect the lives of the public. “This tragedy has added another victim to the toll of deaths for which the terrorists bear responsibility.”
Tom Engelhardt reports on the logical extension of this new ideology, the kidnapping of “terrorism” suspects in various countries around the world by American authorities and then spirited away to dictatorships for torture. There have allegedly been over 100 of such missions since 9/11, but it’s a figure impossible to clarify.
Make no mistake. John Howard would have little or no problem with introducing draconian measures to crack down on “terrorism.” His suggestion this week that the London bombings had nothing to do with the Iraq war show how out of teach with reality he really is.
Let’s not forget that this is a man who recently feted Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf (“I salute somebody in President Musharraf who has led a transition of his country to a democratic state”, said Howard dishonestly.) And now we learn that Pakistan “has continued to let [extremist] groups run military-style camps to train guerilla fighters.” Turning a blind eye to such dangers is a familiar Western tactic. One of the main sources of Islamic extremism is Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and yet both governments are working closely with the Americans and British. What part of “blowback” do they not understand?
The aim is to provide a counterweight to the CNN style programming all too prevalent in the region.
New Scientist has published concerns about the weapon. “How do you ensure that the dose doesn’t cross the threshold for permanent damage?” asks Neil Davison, coordinator of the non-lethal weapons research project at Britain’s Bradford University. “Does the weapon cut out to prevent overexposure?”
Is this the kind of weapon Australian troops may be using during their deployment in Iraq? Will any journalists actually ask the Defence Minister this question? Unlikely. Much easier, as the Sydney Morning Herald pontificates today, to simply mouth official platitudes and champion the US goal of bringing democracy to the country, whatever the costs.
Guess who made this comment? The contemporary relevance is startling.
A manga version of Anne Frank? Tokyo Times reports.
Why is it that a handful of voices can make such statements in Israel and yet arguing similarly in the Diaspora causes faux grief? Only one thing to do, soldier on.
“How many Palestinian babies have died at Israeli checkpoints after their mothers, bleeding and screaming in premature labour, have been forced to give birth beside the road at a military checkpoint with the lights of a hospital in the distance? How many old men have been forced to show obeisance to young Israeli conscripts? How many families have been blown to bits by America-supplied F-16s with British-supplied parts? The gravity of the bombing of London, said a BBC commentator, “can be measured by the fact that it marks Britain’s first suicide bombing”. What about Iraq? There were no suicide bombers in Iraq until Blair and Bush invaded.
“What about Palestine? There were no suicide bombers in Palestine until Ariel Sharon, an accredited war criminal sponsored by Bush and Blair, came to power. In the 1991 Gulf “war”, American and British forces left more than 200,000 Iraqis dead and injured and the infrastructure of their country in “an apocalyptic state”, according to the United Nations. The subsequent embargo, designed and promoted by zealots in Washington and Whitehall, was not unlike a medieval siege. Denis Halliday, the United Nations official assigned to administer the near-starvation food allowance, called it “genocidal”.”
While the Australia media still ignores Seymour Hersh’s report on Iraq’s rigged January election – let’s guess how long it may take them to pick up his lead – the Sydney Morning Herald today reveals its colours in an editorial discussing the “War on Terror.” After suggesting that “opinions about the wisdom and propriety of going to war to topple Saddam Hussein remain polarised”, the paper praised the Howard government’s ongoing commitment to Iraq and Afghanistan, without once asking about the true agendas of the deployments, other than accepting Western government spin. No discussion about US-funded militias, those pesky, missing WMDs, torture in American custody and a planned Constitution that sidelines women and Israel.
Victory is at hand, indeed.
