By Oliver Bullough, commentary published in The New Statesman, Oct 23, 2015 (original title: ‘I wanted to believe in Jeremy Corbyn. But I can’t believe in Seumas Milne’)
Introductory note by New Cold War.org: The new leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, is under fierce attack by the establishment, political right in Britain. Most recently, he is being attacked for appointing Guardian writer Seamus Milne as the communications director of the party.
Some on the pseudo-political left are joining in the attacks. In the following text, the writer argues that contrary to what Seamus Milne has long been writing, events of late in Ukraine and the rest of eastern Europe have “nothing to do” with NATO aims and ambitions. He claims there was a “Russian annexation” of Crimea, even if the overwhelming majority of the people there would strenuously disagree. He makes the increasingly discredited claim that snipers of the government of President Viktor Yanukovych killed dozens of protesters (and their fellow officers!) on Maidan Square on Feb. 20, 2014. What is NOT explained by the writer is anything to do with the right-wing government in Kyiv; how it came to power in a coup d’etat in February 2014; how it has presided over the economic meltdown of the country; and how it waged a brutal civil war in eastern Ukraine and has suppressed political rights in Ukraine proper.
I wish Jeremy Corbyn well, I really do. I sincerely hope he shunts important issues – renationalisation, fairness, tax justice – onto the political mainline where they belong. I was even thinking of getting involved with his revitalised Labour Party. But then he appointed Seumas Milne to direct the party’s strategy and communications.
Milne is by all accounts lovely. As comment editor from 2001 until 2007, he oversaw a comment section that was vibrant to a fault. It’s not him, or his newspaper that’s the problem (full disclosure: I write for the Guardian from time to time myself, and am a paid-up “supporter”); it’s what he thinks.
I specialise in the ex-USSR, where I lived for six years. I’ve written two books about Russia, as well as articles and radio documentaries. I’ve travelled to all but four of the countries of the old Warsaw Pact. I know it pretty well, in short. And yet, when I read what Milne writes about it, I slip into a parallel universe.
Take Ukraine. Ukrainians overthrew President Viktor Yanukovich last year, after snipers killed dozens of protesters. When they broke into his palace, they found treasures upon treasures – icons, carved ivory, Picasso ceramics, ancient books – piled up in the garage. He’d had nowhere to put them.
It was pure people power: the street reclaiming democracy from a thuggish kleptocrat. There was plenty for the leftist Milne to cheer here, right? Wrong. And then Ukraine’s larger neighbour took advantage of the revolutionary government’s weakness to annex its southern province. That’s something for Milne to disapprove of, right? Wrong again.
“The crisis in Ukraine is a product of the disastrous Versailles-style break-up of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s,” he told his readers on March 5. “The US and its allies have since relentlessly expanded NATO up to Russia’s borders… it is hardly surprising that Russia has acted to stop the more strategically sensitive and neuralgic Ukraine falling decisively into the western camp.”
“Putin’s absorption of Crimea and support for the rebellion in eastern Ukraine is clearly defensive,” he wrote, a couple of months later.
Now, you can quibble with the facts. The destruction of the USSR was not some Versailles-style treaty imposed from outside. Russia, Ukraine and Belarus did it themselves, despite opposition from Washington. You can point out that NATO (thanks to Norway) had had a border with Russia for four decades by the early 1990s. And you can suggest that annexing part of a neighbouring country is not a “defensive” step by any conceivable definition.
But really, that’s not important. What’s important is something that’s missing altogether — the recognition that this wasn’t anything to do with NATO or Vladimir Putin at all. This was an uprising by Ukrainians keen to improve their lives.
If Milne wanted to criticise the West, there was plenty of material: Yanukovich’s palace, the one with a Picasso vase in the garage, was owned via a UK shell company, for starters. But Milne appears to have had no interest in the hopes, aspirations or dreams of individual Ukrainians, or in actual instances of Westerners enabling Yanukovich’s beastliness. This, you see, was all about us, and all about NATO.
Eastern Europeans think their countries voted as democracies to join NATO, as is their sovereign right, but that doesn’t wash with Seumas. He thinks this is an aggressive expansion, seemingly against the wishes of the countries involved. “NATO’s hawks have got the bit between their teeth.”
For Milne, geopolitics is more important than people. Whatever crisis strikes the world, the West’s to blame. Why did a group of psychopaths attack a magazine and a supermarket in Paris? “Without the war waged by western powers, including France, to bring to heel and reoccupy the Arab and Muslim world, last week’s attacks clearly couldn’t have taken place”.
Why did Anders Breivik slaughter 77 people? “What is most striking is how closely he mirrors the ideas and fixations of transatlantic conservatives.”
Why did two maniacs in London decapitate an off-duty soldier? “They are the predicted consequence of an avalanche of violence unleashed by the US, Britain and others.”
Milne’s geopolitics spared us having to read how the children of Beslan or the theatregoers of Moscow only had themselves to blame, but office workers in New York had no such luck. “Recognition of why people might have been driven to carry out such atrocities, sacrificing their own lives in the process – or why the United States is hated with such bitterness, not only in Arab and Muslim countries, but across the developing world – seems almost entirely absent.”
And this rampant victim blaming is not an approach confined to current affairs. His geopolitical preferences extend into history too, where he fiercely opposes any suggestion that Stalin’s Soviet Union was as bad as Hitler’s Germany. He has been caricatured as a Stalinist as a result, something that appears to irritate some of his once-and-future Guardian colleagues (he is on leave from the paper). I got into a Twitter debate with Zoe Williams yesterday, in which she pointed out: “he’s written reams about the crimes of Stalin”.
He has indeed, but he has written about them in the manner of a Brit acknowledging the Amritsar massacre, before pointing out how much worse off India would be without trains. A particularly telling Milne moment came in 2006, when the Council of Europe’s parliamentary assembly voted to condemn “the massive human rights violations committed by totalitarian communist regimes”. In the article he wrote in response, Milne admitted the USSR executed 799,455 people, then moved on.
“For all its brutalities and failures, communism in the Soviet Union, eastern Europe and elsewhere delivered rapid industrialisation, mass education, job security and huge advances in social and gender equality,” he insisted.
Now, you can quibble with the facts. Focussing only on the USSR’s executions ignores the millions it starved to death in Ukraine, or in the mass deportations from the Caucasus and Crimea, the way it used rape as a weapon, or that fact it invaded without provocation half a dozen countries. You can also question those “huge advances” considering the fact that life expectancy in the USSR peaked in 1962, then declined steadily as chronic alcoholism took hold. But more important for me was the fact that this sentence reminded me of something I’d read before.
In Politics and the English Language, Orwell conjured up a “comfortable English professor” who wants to defend totalitarianism, but can’t bring himself to admit killing people gets results. “While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore… the rigours which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement,” Orwell’s fictional professor writes.
Almost exactly 60 years had passed between Orwell’s essay and Milne’s humbug but, in the world of supposed leftists who think politics is more important than people, not much appears to have changed.
I wanted to believe in Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party, I really did. But, with the elevation of this man, that chance has gone.
Oliver Bullough is a freelance journalist and author of several books on Russia.
Read also:
Seumas Milne and his swivel-eyed detractors, by John Wight, Counterpunch, October 23, 2015
Full text:
Seumas Milne has never unleashed war on other countries, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children. He has never unleashed Cruise Missiles, ordered the bombing of towns and cities, subverted international law, or in any way created the conditions of crisis, chaos, and societal collapse out of which the bestial violence of al-Qaeda and ISIS/ISIL has emerged.
Instead, Seumas Milne has spent his career railing against those responsible for the aforementioned, helping the vast international readership and following he has amassed in the get to grips and understand a world of injustice, underpinned by the organised hypocrisy and double standards that increasingly passes for democracy in the West. In other words, rather than a member of the media echo chamber, whose ignoble purpose is to defend the indefensible, Milne has been a fierce critic of the government’s role in lurching from one foreign policy disaster to another over the past decade and more, taking a stand on the side of those who have suffered as a consequence.
In other words he is one of the last journalists in Britain entitled to call himself one, ranking with the great American journalists and writers whose work exposing the injustice that was the dark underbelly of that country’s Gilded Age earned them the nomenclature ‘muckraker’.
Upon graduating from Oxford, he began his career in journalism as a staff writer at The Economist, before joining the Guardian, where he has reported from the Middle East, Latin America, Asia, and Eastern Europe, before becoming associate editor.
He has also written for London Review of Books and spent ten years on the executive committee of the National Union of Journalists.
Notwithstanding the aforementioned, his towering journalistic achievement to date is his account of the 1984-85 Miners’ Strike, The Enemy Within, originally published in 1990 and which has never been out of print since. It is a classic work, and the only account of this seminal labour struggle that takes a firm stand on the side of the men and women who fought not only to save their industry and communities, but who put up an epic resistance to the Thatcher juggernaut as it rolled over the lives and livelihoods of millions.
On a personal note, as recently as two years ago, while accompanying Seumas to a sold out event at the Edinburgh Book Festival to promote an updated edition of The Enemy Within, I witnessed ex-miners approach him with tears in their eyes to let him know how much the book meant and still means to them and their comrades, thanking him for telling their story.
How many journalists of the current generation could come close to producing work of such meaning? To ask the question is to answer it.
Now the reason it is important to establish these salient ‘facts’ about Seumas Milne and his career is that his recent appointment by Jeremy Corbyn as his press and strategy chief has unleashed such a chorus of condemnation and calumniation – by a constituency of right wing hacks, former Trotskyists turned right wing bloggers, and embittered failed Labour candidates, among others – you could be forgiven for thinking we are talking about Charles Manson rather than one of the most esteemed journalists this country has every produced.
Indeed, overnight, someone who has spent his entire career working at the very apex of his trade in the mainstream is “insane”, “an apologist for terrorism”, “terrorists”, and “murderous dictators”, a “Stalinist”.
The only thing Milne has not been accused of is 9/11, though surprise, surprise, he has been accused of apologising for it.
What we have seen take place is nothing less than a feral and unhinged scream from the swamp of reaction that resides in our culture, where every crank with a computer resides, consumed with bitterness and untreated angst, much of it in the form of self loathing over their own inadequacies and lack of talent – not to mention in some cases a jump from the extreme left to extreme right of the political spectrum, with all the psychological dysfunction such a metamorphosis describes.
So feral, so extreme has been this motley crew of first rate second rate men (and women) in their biblical denunciations of Seumas Milne, they make the McCarthy witchhunts seem like child’s play by comparison.
The words of Nietzsche come to mind: “Distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful.” Oscar Wilde, however, comes even closer to the truth: “Ridicule is the tribute paid to the genius by the mediocrities.”
John Wight is the author of a politically incorrect and irreverent Hollywood memoir – Dreams That Die – published by Zero Books. He’s also written five novels, which are available as Kindle eBooks. You can follow him on Twitter at @JohnWight1
