The Verdict of History
09.08.07 - 11:20am
Defending the invasion of Iraq, President Bush has on several occasions invoked the authority of The Verdict of History, insisting that it will at some point in the future prove that his Iraq policies were right and vindicate him personally.
Historian Jeffrey Kimble deconstructs Bush’s appeal to how history will judge him here, pointing out:
Of course, we all know that those who appeal to The Verdict of History are desperate. Bush is desperate, and that is why he is embracing this historical security blanket. The overwhelming majority of his compatriots do not believe he can or will succeed in Iraq even if the troops stay there for years or decades. They do not even know what Bush means by success. In any case, they question the costs of the war in relation to its putative necessity.
Nevertheless, it started me thinking about the reliability and significance of the verdict of history, especially given the socio-economic and political environments within which historians inevitably work. As George Orwell noted in 1984: “He who controls the past commands the future. He who commands the future conquers the past.”
While living in South Korea I had some correspondence with the English language daily Korea Times over its regular publication of a syndicated column by former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, in which I pointed out to the bemused editor:
While I can hardly bring myself to be surprised at Henry Kissinger’s typically cynical and factually dubious analysis of the situation in Iraq*, I am slightly surprised that this man warrants half a page in the Korea Times.
Although records of his dubious, if not downright criminal, activities during his years in high office in the United States government are easily available they do not appear to have entered popular consciousness to the appropriate degree. This is shown by the fact that he is still judged to be an acceptable, or even desirable, commentator for newspapers such as the Korea Times.
Kissinger’s many iniquities, familiar as they may be to some, are worth repeating: the bombing of Cambodia and Laos and numerous other despicable actions during the devastation of Indochina; involvement in the coup against Salvador Allende, the democratically elected president of Chile, and the takeover by Pinochet’s murderous military junta; complicity in Operation Condor, the mid-1970s campaign of kidnapping and murder coordinated among the intelligence and security services of the US-backed Latin American terror states; and many others.
Well here we are 30 years on and Kissinger is still feted on chat show sofas, political talk shows, and in newspapers around the world, when any realistic assessment of his record should disqualify him from polite company, never mind the media.
If one accepts that three decades is a sufficient time by the end of which to expect the verdict of history to be in then Kissinger’s continued appearances in the mainstream media may give one pause.
However, there are actually some encouraging signs that the verdict of history, far from vindicating people such as Bush, may even be able to catch up with them in the now. As has been documented by Christopher Hitchens in his book The Trial of Henry Kissinger, and in several newspaper articles, Kissinger can now barely leave the United States for fear of arrest.
While international law remains subject to the forces of geopolitical power relationships, more and more nations have demonstrated a willingness to at least make attempts at internal enforcement, even if it means bringing former leaders and international statesman to court.
Of course, the idea of Tony Blair or George Bush ever standing trial at the Hague remains extraordinarily remote, despite the strong case against them under international law. Nevertheless there are signs that a guilty verdict from history is starting to be able to catch up with offenders.
In many ways, international law and the international environment has not yet progressed much beyond the law of the jungle. However, as the examples of Pinochet and Kissinger demonstrate, once you are no longer the 900 pound gorilla in your own little jungle clearing you might one day find yourself in danger.
* I cannot help but point out that every single aspect of this analysis by the “great statesman” turned out to be completely and utterly wrong, as I predicted at the time.
“However, as the examples of Pinochet and Kissinger demonstrate, once you are no longer the 900 pound gorilla in your own little jungle clearing you might one day find yourself in danger.”
Fantastic - I hope a similar conclusion will one day be realised. Not at the Hague though; in the People’s Court.
This is a very interesting article. I was surprised to learn those little nuggets about Kissinger. Perhaps the tide is changing? The internet surely plays a major part in the reconfiguration of The Verdict of History. We now, more than ever before, have the means to communicate and to share information on a global scale. Of course there is also the danger of disinformation or too much information, or even, the widespread manipulation of information! But, it is a step forward and the PNAC/Neocon cartel cite cyberspace as their ‘Achilles Heel’.
I really like the site, especially the Zapatista banner, and I’m going to delve deeper. You’re on our blogroll now anyway. I’m at messageinamatrix.wordpress.com - please stop by.
The left in Britain needs to unite!
Keep up the good work,
Terry
ps. Thanks for the backup over at Renegade’s site!