Against the Current

Creativity is an over-used word these days…..The reality is greater and greater homogeneity. I have to rack my brains to come up with the names of individuals – including the dead - whose combination of original insights, language and sensibility makes me feel as if I'm being directly addressed. I’ve just tried to do that exercise – and here’s what I came up with….So far. Interesting that most tend to be awkward characters and out of sympathy with the prevailing mood. 

I need to include more women – and Chinese!! 

Name	Nationality	Reason for inclusion
Perry Anderson 1938-	UK/US	The insights his wide reading give of both other countries and previous periods – and the elegance with which they are expressed
Jacques Barzun 1907-2012	French/US	Historian – with special interests in cultural history and history of ideas
Dietrich Bonhoeffer 1906-1945	German	Pastor whose protests and writings against the Hitler regime continue to inspire; and who was executed in the final days of the Second WW
Brecht poetry		He may not have been a very laudable character but his political poetry is very powerful
Peter Drucker 1909-2005	Austro/US	America’s first writer on management
JK Galbraith  1908-2006	Canadian/.US	The breadth of his experience in both public service and academia gave him the ability to express home truths in a pithy, amusing and provocative way – much to the discomfort of the powerful
Francis Fukuyama  1952-	US	He writes brilliantly – on a wide range of subjects
Johan Galtung 1930-	Norwegian	Initially a sociologist but has made major contributions to other social sciences. Occupied the world’s first chair in Peace Studies
David Graeber 1961-2020	US/UK	Anthropologist, anarchist and activist – and prolific writer
Chris Hitchens 1949-2011	UK/US	may lack the humility but compensates with his brilliant oratory and range of reading
Ivan Illich 1926-2002	Austro/South American	A cleric who moved on to work with Paolo Freire and to brilliant critiques of western society
Clive James 1939-2019	Anglo Australian	A hugely underrated essayist and aphorist
Paul Johnson 1928-	English	is an extraordinarily cultured and highly independent English historian whose book on “Intellectuals” did him no favours. “Modern Times” OK
Arthur Koestler 1905-1983	Hungarian/UK	Spanned journalism, literary and scientific work
Deirdre McCloskey 1942-	US	may be too much the American centrist - but is both highly original and a fantastically clear writer
Pankaj Mishra 1969-	Indian	A bit of an autodidact essayist
Edgar Morin 1921-	French	a real original – a prolific writer who breaks disciplinary boundaries and speaks frankly even about the most personal matters for which French academics take him to task. This is a superbly crafted profile
Michel Onfray 1959-	French	An original, prolific and provocative French thinker – who set up a people’s university in Brittany
Elinor Ostrom 1933-2012	US	Has straddled various disciplines – and produced the key intellectual justification for the new work on “the commons”

The New Uncertainty

I wondered in the last post why The Age of the Unthinkable – why the new global order constantly surprises us and what to do about it had – despite its readability – made so little impact when it came out in 2009. I suspect it was perhaps just a bit ahead of its time – if only by a year or so. At the time, most of us were trying to get our heads around the global financial crisis and hadn’t yet realised that this would be the first of a wave of crises to buffet us in the West. John Urry’s “What is the Future?” was published in 2016 and, in 3 pages, gives the titles of no fewer than 60 books which, between 2003 and 2015, spelled out the dystopian future which beckoned… starting with “Our Final Century” (Rees 2003) and finishing with “The Sixth Extinction” (Kolbert) 

The buzzwords of our new world are those from systems, chaos and complexity theory - interconnectedness, networks, feedbacks, emergence, nonlinear change, exponential, tipping points….

Arguably we started to become familiar with this language in 1977 when Ilya Prigogine won the Nobel prize in Chemistry for his work on “dissipative structures” which led to the field for which he is better known – self-organising systems.

His Order out of Chaos - man’s new dialogue with nature wasn’t published in the USA until 1984 but it has a powerful introduction written by the famous Alvin Toffler which starts – 

One of the most highly developed skills in contemporary Western civilization is dissection: the split-up of problems into their smallest possible components. We are good at it. So good, we often forget to put the pieces back together again. This skill is perhaps most finely honed in science. There we not only routinely break problems down into bite-sized chunks and mini-chunks, we then very often isolate each one from its environment by means of a useful trick. We say ceteris paribus-all other things being equal. In this way we can ignore the complex interactions between our problem and the rest of the universe.

llya Prigogine, who won the Nobel Prize in 1977 for his work on the thermodynamics of nonequilibrium systems , is not satisfied, however, with merely taking things apart. He has spent the better part of a lifetime trying to "put the pieces back together again"-the pieces in this case being biology and physics, necessity and chance, science and humanity. 

And the decline of the industrial age forces us to confront the painful limitations of the machine model of reality. Of course, most of these limitations are not freshly discovered. The notion that the world is a clockwork, the planets timelessly orbiting, all systems operating deterministically in equilibrium, all subject to universal laws that an outside observer could discover-this model has come under withering fire ever since it first arose.

In the early nineteenth century, thermodynamics challenged the timelessness implied in the mechanistic image of the universe. If the world was a big machine, the thermos-dynamicists declared, it was running down, its useful energy leaking out. It could not go on forever, and time, therefore, took on a new meaning. 

-       Darwin's followers soon introduced a contradictory thought: The world-machine might be running down, losing energy and organization, but biological systems, at least, were running up, becoming more, not less, organized.

-       By the early twentieth century, Einstein had come along to put the observer back into the system: The machine looked different-indeed, for all practical purposes it was different depending upon where you stood within it. But it was still a deterministic machine, and God did not throw dice.

-       Next, the quantum people and the uncertainty folks attacked the model with pickaxes, sledgehammers, and sticks of dynamite. 

Nevertheless, despite all the ifs, ands, and buts, it remains fair to say, as Prigogine and Stengers do, that the machine paradigm is still the "reference point" for physics and the core model of science in general. Indeed, so powerful is its continuing influence that much of social science, and especially economics, remains under its spell.

The importance of this book is not simply that it uses original arguments to challenge the Newtonian model, but also that it shows how the still valid, though much limited, claims of Newtonianism might fit compatibly into a larger scientific image of reality. It argues that the old "universal laws" are not universal at all, but apply only to local regions of reality. And these happen to be the regions to which science has devoted the most effort. 

Thus, in broad-stroke terms, Prigogine and Stengers argue that traditional science in the Age of the Machine tended to emphasize stability, order, uniformity, and equilibrium. It concerned itself mostly with closed systems and linear relationships in which small inputs uniformly yield small results. With the transition from an industrial society based on heavy inputs of energy, capital, and labor to a high-technology society in which information and innovation are the critical resources, it is not surprising that new scientific world models should appear.

What makes the Prigoginian paradigm especially interesting is that it shifts attention to those aspects of reality that characterize today's accelerated social change: disorder, instability, diversity, disequilibrium, nonlinear relationships (in which small inputs can trigger massive consequences), and temporality-a heightened sensitivity to the flows of time. The work of Ilya Prigogine and his colleagues in the socalled " Brussels school" may well represent the next revolution in science as it enters into a new dialogue not merely with nature, but with society itself.

……. Words like "revolution," "economic crash," "technological upheaval ," and "paradigm shift" all take on new shades of meaning when we begin thinking of them in terms of fluctuations, feedback amplification, dissipative structures, bifurcations, and the rest of the Prigoginian conceptual vocabulary.) It is these panoramic vistas that are opened to us by “Order Out of Chaos”.

The Age of the Unthinkable

On or about summer 1977, the world suddenly started to become a much more complicated place when Ilya Prigogine won the Nobel prize in Chemistry for his work on “dissipative structures” which led to the field for which he is better known – self-organising systems. His Order out of Chaos - man’s new dialogue with nature wasn’t published in the USA until 1984 although it had been released in french the same year he had won the Nobel prize.

A few years later Chaos – making a new science (1987) was the first book to popularise the remarkable changes which were beginning to undermine the way we thought we had understood the world and science since Isaac Newton’s time.

Einstein’s theory of relativity had, of course, been a bit of a challenge a hundred years ago – but somehow we had ridden that out. But the findings of what was variously called systems, complexity or chaos theory have, for the last couple of decades, been challenging everything we thought we knew about cause and effect! 

This blog has several times tried to understand what the new approach actually meant – one of my first efforts appearing exactly ten years ago but has had to admit failure – this post containing the reading list I was using last December in a continuing effort to make sense of what the basic message and its implications actually were.

A highly readable book, however, has persuaded me to give the subject yet another chance. It is The Age of the Unthinkable – why the new global order constantly surprises us and what to do about it by J Cooper Ramo which actually appeared in 2009 - 12 years ago - but, curiously for such a great read, doesn’t appear to have made much impression. But he knows how to tell a good story – and they soon had a sufficient grip on me to be willing to put my prejudice aside about his being a Director of a Henry Kissinger institute. 

One story he uses is the famous one told by Isaiah Berlin about foxes and hedgehogs – with the latter knowing a lot about one subject and the former a little about a lot of subjects. He also makes good use of Richard Nesbitt’s work on the very different ways Asians and Westerners apparently think – with the former seeing more the context and background and the latter individuals. 

Indeed, apart from the story of a Danish scientist I hadn’t heard of (Per Bak who worked on what causes an individual grain of sand suddenly to cause collapse of an entire heap) Ramo doesn’t refer all that much to the extensive literature on systems and complexity theory. Perhaps indeed, that’s why I enjoyed the book so much! He chooses instead to focus on the ability of a few creative people to think outside the box. Indeed his book has parallels with Range – Why Generalists triumph in a specialised world by David Epstein and Rebel ideas – the power of diverse thinking by Matthew Syed

Let’s see what another of the (rare) reviewers of Ramo’s book had to say about it - 

The US-led ‘war on terror’ has succeeded only in creating more terrorists..... Largely self-regulating global capital markets have proven to be incapable of balancing or regulating effectively enough to stave off economic misery to millions. Capitalism itself, and its Cold War foe, communism, have in most cases achieved the very opposite of their aims of bringing prosperity, health and happiness to all.

Ramos does not suggest that the world is anarchic, however. His view is that the world is in a state of ‘organised instability’, a concept drawn from the physical sciences, in particular chaos theory and complexity science.

In this system, we never know what event, object or person may prove to be responsible for triggering unexpected and occasionally catastrophic change. 

Our current institutions are inherently incapable of grasping the idea of ‘organised instability’ and therefore formulate policy via outmoded thought and practice. Essentially, they make bad policy because they do not understand the environment in which they operate, and are too lethargic and inflexible to adapt and respond.

Ramo is encouraging policy-makers to take a good hard look at the world around them and at themselves and then begin reconfiguring power structures and decision-making processes in order to generate good and appropriate policy that reflects the dynamism of a complex world. Through a series of diverse case studies Ramo draws conclusions about how some people and organisations are thriving in an unstable world.  

At the heart of them all is a reliance on quick-wittedness, innovation, pragmatism, and an eye for opportunity. This holds true as much for Hizballah as it does for Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. The bulkof the book is taken up with describing how people are adaptingsuccessfully across the world while traditional structures are falling behind.

Ramo writes in engaging fashion, is adept at linking across times and subjects, and the reader is left in little doubt that he is definitely on to something. His suggestion that we view threats as systems, rather than objects, is wise but already part of military planning, if not political decision-making. 

In the next post, I want to go back to Ilya Prigigone’s 1984 book – not least because it has an extensive introduction written by no less a figure than Alvin Toffler

A World Changed?

There were two headlines at the top of yesterday’s Guardian front page – the first the predictable one about the observation of the 20^th anniversary of 9/11; the other about the US drone strike on Kabul which had mistakenly targeted an Afghan who turned out to be working for a US organisation and which also blew up several of his children. We are supposed to see the first as a “world-changing” event and the second as “collateral damage”. This is US exceptionalism at its most distasteful and hypocritical.   

The world did not change on September 11^th 2001 – and anyone who thinks so is out of their tiny mind. I can well believe that it shocked the American population to realise that they could be attacked on their own soil – but that just shows the scale of their imagined exceptionalism. And did the American voter realise that they were unleashing a military spend of some 8 trillion dollars??

But the question of global turning points is an important one….Virginia Woolf's famous assertion (in 1924) that “on or about December 1913 human nature changed” rather challenges my view that modernism started when Marx and Engels produced their “Communist Manifesto” in 1848. But her statement is matched by the equally questionable claim that “the modern world died at 3.32 pm  15 July 1972 in St Louis, Missouri when the notorious Pruitt Igou housing scheme was dynamited”. This is taken from an amusing article “Postmodernism – 10 key moments” written by the author of “Grand Hotel Abyss – the lives of the Frankfurt School” 

My recent posts have focused on such questions as

-       when modernity became postmodernity

-       whether postmodernity has played itself out

-       what will replace it

-       whether any of this matters 

Let me try to deal with each of these – briefly 

1.      Daniel Bell’s use of the phrase “post-industrial” in 1960 signalled the birth-pangs of post-modernism with 3 important books detailing the relevant social changes before the decade was out – viz in The Temporary Society by Warren Bennis and Philip Slater (1968); The Age of Discontinuity; by the famous Peter Drucker (1969) and Between Two Ages - America’s Role in the Technetronic Era by Zbigniev Brzezinski (1970) best capturing the transition pains… 

2.     Postmodernity is like a slow-burning fuse. The whole “fake news” saga is down to it – although I have tried to show in these posts that it has had its positive side eg our appreciation that the world can and should be seen from a variety of perspectives   

3.    So I think it’s a bit early to celebrate its death. We still haven’t managed to respond to the savaging it’s given to the belief we used to have in human reason – and how untruths can be exposed. Indeed it’s only recently that I, for one, have come across books which, 2 decades ago, made sterling efforts to deal with the challenges this posed to the various academic disciplines. Two of the best are Richard Evan’s In Defence of History (1997) and D McCloskey’s “The Rhetoric of Economics” (1998)  

4.     And yes, I do think it’s important to try to identify turning points in history. Global warming, Artificial Intelligence and Pandemics are the three factors which, together, seem now to be leading us in a new direction – as these 2 reports indicate “Artificial Intelligence and the future of Humans” (Pew Institute 2018) “Humanity is at a Precipice” (2019)

Postmodernity/postmodernism – WTF

Some readers may feel that these labels are pointless and, generally, I would agree..But, on this occasion, it seems rather important to know if we are in a new era - where the old assumptions which served us well in the past no longer work

So allow me to pursue these personal recollections – to see where they lead…… 

I don’t think too many of us – if asked - would be able to give a convincing account of “postmodernity”. And that certainly includes me.

Until recently I would have muttered something like “incoherent gibberish” as a comment and “anything goes” as an epitaph – except that it hasn’t really gone away. Arguably, with “post-truth”, it is only now reaching its zenith….

As Postmodernity is presumed to have revealed itself just as I was starting university (1960) and I didn’t notice anything all that unusual until sometime in the new millennium, this suggests a certain carelessness – if not insouciance - on my part.

Although I can always plead that I haven’t lived in Western Europe for the past 30 years!  

But did we ever understand what “modernity” was about? And when did we first become aware that it was no more?

It’s interesting that it was 1982 before clear explanation was published - with Marshall Berman’s  “All that is Solid Melts into Air”  – a quotation, of course, from Karl Marx whose “Communist Manifesto” launched the age of modernity. But I for one didn’t came across the book until the last decade or so. Oh - and modernity, for him, was the combustion engine, electricity, trains, speed, ideology etc 

In 1972 I set up a Local Government Unit at Paisley College of Technology which basically allowed me to use my position as a reforming politician in a shipbuilding town to present and explore the odd mixture of ideas about rationality, participation, positive discrimination which were wafting their way across the Atlantic…..The very phrase “maximum feasible participation” of the poor indicated how radical the efforts were…

The Unit’s papers and seminars achieved sufficient success to allow the powers-that- be to give me a sabbatical for 4 years to try to consolidate its position.

I have to confess that I repaid their faith with lethargy – the powerful position I held as one of the leaders of Strathclyde Region (which had half of the Scottish Office budget and managed half of the professional employed in Scotland) just took up too much of my time.    

Recognising in 1982 or so that I would need to go back to real academic work, I was in the first group to enrol in Britain’s first (part-time) Masters’ degree in Policy Analysis set up by Professor Lewis Gunn at the University of Strathclyde whose staff included people such as Michael Keating, Arthur Midwinter and Gavin Kennedy.

Lewis Gunn delivered traditional lectures about the fascinating exchanges which had been taking place in the postwar period in the USA about rationality and the decision-making process involving people such as Herbert Simon and Charles Lindblom…..

The session on “Frame Analysis” (originating from Erving Goffman in 1974) made such a vivid impression on me that I still have memories of my reaction as it was being delivered. The technique simply demonstrates how different “stories” are used to make sense of complex social events. But I had no occasion to use it - little did I realize that it was to become a central part of post-modernism’s encouragement of diverse realities…  It took more than a decade before political scientist Chris Hood’s The Art of the State (1998­) brought it all home to me. The book uses Mary Douglas’ grid-group theory to offer a brilliant analysis of 4 basic “world views” (individualist, hierarchical, fatalist and egalitarian) and their strengths and weaknesses in particular contexts.

Michael Thompson is an anthropologist who has used Mary Douglas’ cultural theory to make The case for clumsiness (2004) which, again, sets out the various stories which sustain the different positions people take on various key policy issues – such as the ecological disaster with which we are now confronted. There is a good interview with the author here

Three short reports give an excellent summary of all this literature; and its political significance – Keith Grint’s Wicked Problems and Clumsy Solutions (2008); Common Cause (2010); and Finding Frames (2010) 

But geographer Michael Hulme’s Why We Disagree About Climate Change (2009) is probably the most thorough and satisfying use of the approach - applying seven different lenses (or perspectives) to make sense of climate change: viz those of “science, economics, religion, psychology, media, development, and governance”. His argument is basically that –

·       We understand science and scientific knowledge in different ways

·       We value things differently

·       We believe different things about ourselves, the universe and our place in the universe

·       We fear different things

·       We receive multiple and conflicting messages about climate change – and interpret them differently

·       We understand “development” differently

·       We seek to govern in different ways (eg top-down “green governmentality”; market environmentalism; or “civic environmentalism”) 

It’s a pity that so few authors have tried to apply this approach to the global economic crisis. Most people who write about that are stuck in their own particular “quadrant” (to use the language of grid-group writing) and fail to do justice to the range of other ways of seeing the crisis. This diagram of mine tries to offer an example of the sort of humility we need from our writers 

The previous post and this one have involved a romp down memory lane. I’ve inflicted this on my readers simply because it seems to take us a long time to recognise what’s staring us in the face. I’m sure I remember George Orwell saying something to that effect. It’s like boiling a frog – something I’ve never done – but Charles Handy uses the story to make the point about the dangers of being left behind by social change

Postmodernity - another go

These last 2 weeks I’ve been trying to get my head around postmodernity – or rather what the relevant “literature” seemed to be saying about it. An accident of birth had actually given me the facility, from my mid-teens, of seeing the world through several lens. Initially I experienced this as a difficult tension but that gradually gave way to a realisation that being able to look at the world from a variety of angles had its beneficial side. Like Monsieur Jourdain, I’ve been speaking prose all my life 

This post is a continuation of the recent series of posts on postmodernism started here – in which I will try to bring my thoughts on the issue more clearly together. For reasons I can’t quite explain, however, I feel it important that I first describe

-       my particular learning experience

-       the difficulties I’ve had in making sense of postmodernism

and then to explore the question of what follows postmodernism. This may take several posts…

Why I was lucky 

I received my education in a state school which still then possessed the positive features of Scotland’s Democratic Tradition now, sadly, much traduced. It would have been easier for my parents to send me to the secondary school just a few blocks from our house but my father was a Presbyterian Minister and home was a manse (owned by the Church of Scotland) in the exclusive “West End” - so that school was fee-paying, if one in which I already had friends.

And my parents (although no radicals) would never have contemplated taking a step which would have created a barrier with my father’s congregation who were stalwarts of the town’s lower middle classes with modest houses and apartments in the centre and east of the town. 

Thus began my familiarization with the nuances of the class system – and with the experience of straddling boundaries which was to become such a feature of my life. Whether the boundaries are those of class, party, professional group intellectual discipline or nation, they are well protected if not fortified…..And trying to straddle such borders – let alone explore them – can be an uncomfortable experience.  

At University in the 60s I had been interested in how social systems held together - and  in particular in why people (generally) obeyed those placed in authority above them - Max Weber’s classification of political systems into – “traditional”, “charismatic” and “rational-legal” was an eye-opener and gave me the first of many typologies I was to find myself using. 

When I became a young councillor in 1968 (for the Catholic-dominated Labour party), I found myself torn between my loyalties to the local community activists on the one hand and those to my (older) political colleagues and officials on the other.

And I felt this particularly strongly when I was elevated to the ranks of magistrate and required to deal with the miscreants who confronted us as lay judges every Monday morning – up from the prison cells where they had spent the weekend for drunkenness and wife-beating……..The collusion between the police and my legal adviser was clear but my role was to adjudicate “beyond reasonable doubt” and the weak police testimonials often gave me reason to doubt….I dare say I was too lenient and I certainly got such a reputation – meaning that I was rarely disturbed to sign search warrants! 

And, on being elevated a few years later to one of the leading positions in a giant new Region, I soon had to establish relations with - and adjudicate between the budgetary and policy bids of - senior professionals heading specialized Departments with massive budgets and manpower. 

It was at that stage that I developed a diagram for my students to make sense of the “conflict of loyalties” in what I saw as 4 very different sets of accountabilities to which politicians are subject – 

- local voters (if the electoral system is based on local constituencies);

- the party (both local and national)

- the officials (and laws) of the particular government agency they had entered;

- their conscience. 

Politicians, I argued, differ according to the extent of the notice they took of each of the pressures coming from each of these sources – and the loyalties this tended to generate. And I gave names to the 4 types which could be distinguished –

-       “populist” – who articulated the stronger voices of the voters

-       “ideologue” – who operated in the bubble of the party faithful

-       “statesman” – who would try to extract the commonality from the multiple voices of professional advisers 

-       “maverick” – who tries to sort it out for him/herself

But, I argued, the effective politician is the one who resists the temptation to be drawn exclusively into any one of these roles. Each has its own important truth - but it is when someone blends the various partialities into a workable and acceptable proposition that we see real leadership.

Each generates its own way of looking at the world – as you will see from the table in this post which looks only at seven academic disciplines 

Once we become aware of the very different worlds in which people live, our world suddenly becomes a very richer place – in which we have choices about the particular lens we use to make sense of it all…

I remember the first time I really became aware of this – when I did the Belbin team test. And The Art of Thinking by Bramsall and Harrison (1984) very usefully sets out the very different ways each of us thinks. viz types of strategic thinking..How we see ourselves (and others see us) is a critical part of self-discovery - part of the Schumacher quote which figures in the “quotations” block which I’ve just moved up to the 4^th section of the long list which now stretches down the right-hand corner of the blog

Holding Power to Account

I’ve posted before about how far the United States has become a rogue state. For the last half century at least, the principles of free speech and of democracy have been honoured there in the breach more often than in reality. I was, however, shocked this morning by a Scheerpost reporting two items which reveal just how far the power structure goes to muzzle those who challenge the military-industrial complex

First, human rights attorney Steven Donziger has now been under house arrest in his New York City apartment for two years. The reason for his detainment is that Donziger made it his business to hold Chevron accountable for how the Big Oil megacorp "harmed, sickened and killed tens of thousands in Ecuador" and tried to avoid paying "billions of dollars" in restitutions. 

Donziger's battle against American oil companies and on behalf of indigenous communities and farmers in Ecuador spans nearly three decades. He was part of an international legal team that represented indigenous groups in Northern Ecuador where, as he tells Camp, from the 1960s to the '90s Texaco (now Chevron) deliberately "dumped billions of gallons of cancer-causing toxic waste" into local waterways, costing thousands of people their health, livelihood—even their lives.

Though in 2011 the lawsuit culminated in a historic $9.5 billion pollution judgment, Chevron brass subsequently focused on going after Donziger rather than paying the fee. In late July, he was hit with a six counts of criminal contempt, a conviction stemming in part from his refusal to turn over his computer and other devices, which he fought last month with a request for a new trial. His ongoing pre-trial detainment for a misdemeanor offense is unprecedented for any person without a prior criminal record in federal court. (Click here to watch Chris Hedges' interview with Donziger, and listen to Robert Scheer's "Scheer Intelligence" podcast episode with Donziger here) 

The second example is of a former intelligence analyst in the drone program for the Air Force who as a private contractor leaked some 17 classified documents about drone strikes to the press, was sentenced today to 45 months in prison. 

The documents, published by The Intercept on October 15, 2015, exposed that between January 2012 and February 2013, US special operations airstrikes killed more than 200 people. Of those, only 35 were the intended targets. For one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets. The civilian dead, usually innocent bystanders, were routinely classified as “enemies killed in action.”

The Justice Department coerced Hale, who was deployed to Afghanistan in 2012, on March 31 to plead guilty to one count of violating the Espionage Act, a law passed in 1917 designed to prosecute those who passed on state secrets to a hostile power, not those who expose to the public government lies and crimes. Hale admitted as part of the plea deal to “retention and transmission of national security information” and leaking 11 classified documents to a journalist. If he had refused the plea deal, he could have spent 50 years in prison.  

But what’s really sinister about the case is, as Chris Hedges puts it, that 

Those charged under the act are treated as if they were spies.  They are barred from explaining motivations and intent to the court. They cannot provide evidence to the court of the government lawlessness and war crimes they exposed.  Prominent human rights organizations, such as the ACLU and PEN, along with mainstream publications, such as The New York Times and CNN, have largely remained silent about the prosecution of Hale. 

The sentencing of Hale is, of course, one more potentially mortal blow to the freedom of the press in the USA.  It follows in the wake of the prosecutions and imprisonment of other whistleblowers under the Espionage Act including Chelsea Manning, Jeffrey Sterling, Thomas Drake and John Kiriakou, who spent two-and-a-half years in prison for exposing the routine torture of suspects held in black sites.  Chris Hedges continues 

The group Stand with Daniel Hale has called on President Biden to pardon Hale and end the use of the Espionage Act to punish whistleblowers. It is also collecting donations for Hale’s legal fund. The bipartisan onslaught against the press — Barack Obama used the Espionage Act eight times against whistleblowers, more than all other previous administrations combined — by criminalizing those within the system who seek to inform the public is ominous for our democracy.  It is effectively extinguishing all investigations into the inner workings of power. 

Not that the Americans are the only ones up to dirty tricks of this sort. Just a few nights ago, I had watched the 2019 film Official Secrets which told the case of UK whistleblower Katharine Gun, who leaked a memo exposing an illegal spying operation by American and British intelligence services to gauge sentiment of and potentially blackmail United Nations diplomats tasked to vote on a resolution regarding the 2003 invasion of Iraq

Her defence team decided on the plea that Katharine was acting out of loyalty to her country by seeking to prevent the UK from being led into an unlawful war in Iraq. UK Foreign Office deputy legal adviser, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, had famously resigned when the UK Attorney General Peter Goldsmith changed his position on the legality of the Iraq War after meeting with several lawyers from the Bush administration. Despite the odds stacked against them, Katharine refused to plead guilty in exchange for a reduced charge.

On the day of the trial, the Crown prosecutor dropped all charges against Katharine on the grounds that prosecuting her would have shown that Bliar led the UK into war on false pretences. 

OK the goodies won on this occasion - but they all too rarely do!

Little wonder that one of the books on my recent reading list was Unaccountable – how the elite brokers corrupt; Janine Wedel (2014)

Update; Scheerpost has just put up a third striking post - this time a forensic dissection of the Afghan strategy.

And, on 13 September, this brilliant contextual analysis