It has already started. The propaganda, that is, for the next war over who shall be in a position to dominate the Middle East and its oilfields. Modern wars require a certain degree of support amongst the population of the country going to war. But since people are less likely to support a war for mere economic or geopolitical reasons a warring state has to present its war as one for some more “noble” cause.
So, Bush and his side-kick Blair are not coming out and saying that their concern is to overthrow the regime in Iraq under Saddam Hussein as it could pose a threat at some later stage to the current domination of the Middle East oilfields by the Western powers. They claim that their war would be one to “free the Iraqi people from oppression from an evil dictator” and to “remove a threat to world peace”. Don’t believe a word of it. They don’t.
As the war propaganda campaign has already started, now is the time to expose the aims and techniques of such propaganda. Last year a Belgian historian,
Anne Morelli, brought out a book in which she set out again, with more recent examples, the “elementary principles of war propaganda” as exposed by the pacifist
Arthur Ponsonby in his 1928 book
Falsehood in War.
We reproduce below the 10 principles with Morelli’s introductory comments. In virtue of the tenth principle, we expect to be included by the pro-war media as amongst those supporting Saddam. But we are no more pro-Saddam than we are pro-Bush or pro-Blair. We are anti-capitalism and its wars, which are always fought for capitalist interests such as sources of raw materials, markets, trade routes, investment outlets, and strategic points to protect these.
* * *
1. “We don’t want war”
Arthur Ponsonby had already pointed out that, before declaring war or when they are making the declaration of war, the statesmen of all countries, at least in modern history, always solemnly proclaim that they did not want the war. War and its train of horrors are rarely popular a priori and it is thus good taste to present yourself as a lover of peace.
2. “The opposing side is solely responsible for the war”
Arthur Ponsonby had already noted the paradox in the First World War, which could also no doubt be found in many previous wars: each side proclaims that it was forced, to declare war to prevent the other side from putting the planet to fire and sword.
3. “The enemy has the face of the devil”
You can’t hate the whole of a human group, even when it is presented as the enemy. It is thus more effective to concentrate hatred of the enemy onto the opposing leader. The enemy thus has a face and this face is evidently odious. War is not carried on against the “Boshes” or the “Japs” but more precisely against Napoleon, the Kaiser, Mussolini, Hitler, Nasser, Gaddafi, Khomeiny, Saddam Hussein or Milosevic. This odious bogeyman disguises the diversity of the population they lead, amongst the ordinary citizen might find a counterpart to identify with.
4. “We are defending a noble cause not particular interests”
Wars generally have as their motive a desire for geopolitical domination, accompanied by economic reasons. But such motives for war cannot be admitted to public opinion. Modern wars, however, are only possible with the consent of the population, if only because parliaments have in principle to give their agreement to war being declared. This consent is easily obtained if the population thinks that their independence, their honour, their freedom, or their lives, depend on the outcome of the war and that the war is the bearer of indisputably moral values. Propaganda has therefore to disguise certain aims and get other aims believed in.
5. “The enemy knowingly commits atrocities; if we blot our copybook it’s involuntarily”
Stories about atrocities committed by the enemy are an essential element of war propaganda. Obviously this doesn’t mean that atrocities don’t take place in wars. On the contrary, assassinations, armed robberies, burnings, looting and rape seem rather to be — unfortunately — current in all war situations and the practise of all armies, from ancient times to the wars of the 21st century. What is specific to war propaganda is getting people to believe that only the enemy is in the habit of doing these things, while our own army is at the service of the population, even the enemy’s, and is loved by them. Deviant criminality becomes the very symbol of the enemy army alone, composed essentially of bandits without law or faith.
6. “The enemy is using unauthorised arms”
This principle is a corollary of the previous one. Not only do we not commit atrocities but we make war in a chivalrous way, respecting the rules — as if war was a game, certainly tough but manly. Obviously this is not the case of our enemies, who refuse to abide by the rules. In reality, the outcome of wars can depend on the strategic skills of the generals or on the motivation and courage of the participants but also — mainly? — on the clear superiority of the arms of one of the sides.
7. “We suffer very few losses, the enemy’s losses are enormous”
With only rare exceptions, humans generally prefer to be on the winning side. In the case of war the support of public opinion depends on the perceived results of the conflict. If the results are not good, propaganda must hide our losses and exaggerate those of the enemy.
8. “Artists and intellectuals support our cause”
Propaganda, like all forms of advertising, is based on emotion. It is the lever used permanently to mobilise public opinion; it can even be said that propaganda and emotion have always been of the same nature. However, to arouse emotion you can’t rely on civil servants. You have to call in either advertising professionals — which the Kuwait lobby did in calling in Hill and Knowtown who concocted for them the touching story of babies torn from their incubators by Iraqi soldiers—or to artists and intellectuals, who are professionally trained to arouse emotions.
9. “Our cause has a sacred character”
If our cause is sacred we are obliged to defend it, if necessary with arms. But this sacred character can be taken either in a literal or a broader sense. Taken literally, this would mean that, if the cause is religious, the war is a crusade from which nobody can opt out. And in fact the religious argument has been used in war propaganda. Pithy formulations such as Gott mit Uns, In God we trust, or God save the Queen will be recalled which often accompanied the combatants and still do.
10. “Those who question the propaganda are traitors”
Lord Ponsonby had already noted that any attempt to cast doubt on the stories of the propaganda services is immediately considered as a lack of patriotism or rather as treason.
(Translated from Principes élémentaires de propagande de guerre by Anne Morelli, Editions Labor, Brussels, 2001)
