|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : North
America
Harold Pinters Nobel Prize speech: a brave artist speaks
the truth about US imperialism
By Barry Grey
9 December 2005
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email
the author
British playwright Harold Pinter, this years Nobel laureate
for literature, delivered a passionate, truthful and courageous
acceptance speech to the Swedish Academy on Wednesday. The renowned
author of such plays as The Homecoming and The Caretaker,
Pinter has spoken out tirelessly and powerfully against the war
in Iraq and the depredations of American imperialism in the Balkans,
Central America and elsewhere that preceded it.
He utilized his acceptance speech to extend and develop that
struggle, giving a blistering critique of the entire course of
US foreign policy in the period since World War II, and indicting
Britain for its role as Washingtons junior partner and accomplice.
Mincing no words, Pinter called Bush and Blair war criminals,
and made an impassioned call for mass political resistance to
militarism and war.
The 75-year-old playwright, screenwriter, poet, actor and antiwar
activist gave his address in the form of a videotape, made in
Britain and shown on screens to the assemblage in Stockholm. Pinter
was recently treated for cancer of the esophagus and remains in
fragile health. On the advice of his physicians, he refrained
from making the trip to Sweden.
He appeared on tape sitting in a wheelchair, with a rug over
his knees. His voice was hoarse, but, according to published accounts,
no less commanding for that.
Pinters address, entitled Art, Truth and Politics,
was refreshing and even liberating in its honesty and bluntness
about the catastrophic impact of US subversion, violence and aggression
over many decades and in many parts of the world. Even sections
of the establishment press in both Britain and the United States,
such as the Guardian and the New York Times,
which have fully participated in the dissemination of lies
and the coverup of crimes associated with US foreign policy, were
obliged to register in some measure the powerful impact of Pinters
words.
Pinter prefaced a discussion of his body of dramatic work and
his approach to art with the following observation:
In 1958 I wrote the following: There are no hard
distinctions between what is real and what is unreal, nor between
what is true and what is false. A thing is not necessarily either
true or false; it can be both true and false.
I believe that these assertions still make sense and
do still apply to the exploration of reality through art. So as
a writer I stand by them but as a citizen I cannot. As a citizen
I must ask: What is true? What is false?
Pinter proceeded to give some insight into the complex and
elusive process by which he composed his dramas, making clear
that his primary concern was the utilization of language, plot
and character to discover important human and social truths.
Concerning the relationship between art, language and truth
he said: So language in art remains a highly ambiguous transaction,
a quicksand, a trampoline, a frozen pool which might give way
under you, the author, at any time.
But as I have said, the search for the truth can never
stop. It cannot be adjourned, it cannot be postponed. It has to
be faced, right there, on the spot.
This theme of the responsibility to seek and present the truth
was the connecting link between his remarks on drama and his remarks
on history and politics. He said: Political language, as
used by politicians, does not venture into any of this territory
since the majority of politicians, on the evidence available to
us, are interested not in truth but in power and the maintenance
of that power. To maintain that power it is essential that people
remain in ignorance, that they live in ignorance of the truth,
even the truth of their own lives. What surrounds us therefore
is a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed.
He continued: As every single person here knows, the
justification for the invasion of Iraq was that Saddam Hussein
possessed a highly dangerous body of weapons of mass destruction,
some of which could be fired in 45 minutes, bringing about appalling
devastation. We were assured that was true. It was not true. We
were told that Iraq had a relationship with Al Qaeda and shared
responsibility for the atrocity in New York of September 11, 2001.
We were assured that this was true. It was not true. We were told
that Iraq threatened the security of the world. We were assured
it was true. It was not true.
Pinter then moved to a discussion of US foreign policy since
the end of the Second World War. Everyone knows what happened
in the Soviet Union and throughout Eastern Europe during the post-war
period: the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the
ruthless suppression of independent thought. All this has been
fully documented and verified.
But my contention here is that the US crimes in the same
period have only been superficially recorded, let alone documented,
let alone acknowledged, let alone recognized as crimes at all....
Although constrained, to a certain extent, by the existence of
the Soviet Union, the United States actions throughout the
world made it clear that it had concluded it had carte blanche
to do what it liked.
Pinter then spoke of Washingtons record of international
subversion: In the main, it has preferred what it has described
as low intensity conflict. Low intensity conflict
means that thousands of people die but slower than if you dropped
a bomb on them in one fell swoop. It means that you infect the
heart of the country, that you establish a malignant growth and
watch the gangrene bloom. When the populace has been subduedor
beaten to deaththe same thingand your own friends,
the military and the great corporations, sit comfortably in power,
you go before the camera and say that democracy has prevailed.
This was commonplace in US foreign policy in the years to which
I refer.
He then went on to describe the mass murder and destruction
wreaked by the US-backed Contra terrorists in Nicaragua in the
1980s. I should remind you, he said, that at
the time President Reagan made the following statement: The
Contras are the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers.
Pinter elaborated on the US role in Nicaragua and Central America
as a whole. Noting the social achievements of the left-nationalist
Sandanista regime that overthrew the US-backed dictator Samoza
in 1979the abolition of the death penalty, land reform,
gains in literacy and public education, free health carehe
said:
The United States denounced these achievements as Marxist/Leninist
subversion. In the view of the US government, a dangerous example
was being set. If Nicaragua was allowed to establish basic norms
of social and economic justice, if it was allowed to raise the
standards of health care and education and achieve social unity
and national self respect, neighbouring countries would ask the
same questions and do the same things. There was of course at
that time fierce resistance to the status quo in El Salvador....
President Reagan commonly described Nicaragua as a totalitarian
dungeon. This was taken generally by the media, and certainly
by the British government, as accurate and fair comment... The
totalitarian dungeons were actually next door, in El Salvador
and Guatemala. The United States had brought down the democratically
elected government of Guatemala in 1954 and it is estimated that
over 200,000 people had been victims of successive military dictatorships....
The United States finally brought down the Sandinista
government. It took some years and considerable resistance but
relentless economic persecution and 30,000 dead finally undermined
the spirit of the Nicaraguan people. They were exhausted and poverty
stricken once again. The casinos moved back into the country.
Free health and free education were over. Big business returned
with a vengeance. Democracy had prevailed.
But this policy was by no means restricted
to Central America. It was conducted throughout the world. It
was never-ending. And it is as if it never happened.
The United States supported and in many cases engendered
every right-wing military dictatorship in the world after the
end of the Second World War. I refer to Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay,
Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines, Guatemala, El
Salvador, and, of course, Chile. The horror the United States
inflicted upon Chile in 1973 can never be purged and can never
be forgiven. [Editors note: There are other
countries that could be added to Pinters list, including
Argentina, Iran and Pakistan].
Moving on to the US establishments well-honed and sophisticated
propaganda methods, Pinter said: Language is actually employed
to keep thought at bay. The words the American people
provide a truly voluptuous cushion of reassurance... This does
not apply of course to the 40 million people living below the
poverty line and the 2 million men and women imprisoned in the
vast gulag of prisons, which extends across the US.
Pinter continued: The United States no longer bothers
about low intensity conflict. It no longer sees any point in being
reticent or even devious. It puts its cards on the table without
fear or favour. It quite simply doesnt give a damn about
the United Nations, international law or critical dissent, which
it regards as impotent and irrelevant. It also has its own bleating
little lamb tagging behind it on a lead, the pathetic and supine
Great Britain.
What has happened to our moral sensibility?... Look at
Guantanamo Bay. Hundreds of people detained without charge for
over three years, with no legal representation or due process,
technically detained forever. This totally illegitimate structure
is maintained in defiance of the Geneva Convention...
The invasion of Iraq was a bandit act, an act of blatant
state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept
of international law... A formidable assertion of military force
responsible for the death and mutilation of thousands and thousands
of innocent people.
We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium,
innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death
to the Iraqi people and call it bringing freedom and democracy
to the Middle East.
How many people do you have to kill before you qualify
to be described as a mass murderer and war criminal? One hundred
thousand? More than enough, I would have thought. Therefore it
is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the International
Criminal Court of Justice. But Bush has been clever. He has not
ratified the International Criminal Court of Justice. Therefore
if any American soldier or for that matter politician finds himself
in the dock Bush has warned that he will send in the marines.
But Tony Blair has ratified the Court and is therefore available
for prosecution. We can let the Court have his address if theyre
interested. It is Number 10, Downing Street, London....
The 2,000 American dead are an embarrassment. They are
transported to their graves in the dark. Funerals are unobtrusive,
out of harms way. The mutilated rot in their beds, some
for the rest of their lives.
Summing up, Pinter said: I have said earlier that the
United States is now totally frank about putting its cards on
the table. That is the case. Its official declared policy is now
defined as Full spectrum dominance. That is not my
term, it is theirs. Full spectrum dominance means
control of land, sea, air space and all attendant resources...
Many thousands, if not millions, of people in the United
States itself are demonstrably sickened, shamed and angered by
their governments actions, but as things stand they are
not a coherent political forceyet. But the anxiety, uncertainty
and fear which we can see growing daily in the United States is
unlikely to diminish...
I believe that despite the enormous odds which exist,
unflinching, unswerving, fierce intellectual determination, as
citizens, to define the real truth of our lives and our societies
is a crucial obligation which devolves upon us all. It is in fact
mandatory.
If such a determination is not embodied in our political
vision we have no hope of restoring what is so nearly lost to
usthe dignity of man.
See Also:
British playwright Harold
Pinter awarded Nobel Prize in literature
[14 October 2005]
Observer newspaper
targets playwright Harold Pinter for his criticism of NATO
[20 May 1999]
Playwright Harold
Pinter presents a powerful case in opposition to NATO bombardment
of Serbia
[7 May 1999]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |