Words are weapons
Level 3 |
Advanced
From ‘civilisation’ to
‘WMD’, words are weapons
Simon Tisdall
S
econd w orld w ar poste rs wa rnin g th at " car eless t alk costs lives" re pres ent ed a l astin g tr uth. Th en th e fe ar w as th at spi es
might overhear conversations of value to the
Nazis. The equivalent US slogan was "loose
lips sink ships". Sixty years on, in another era
of conflict, the careless talk comes more
often from politicians - but it is potentially just
as deadly. When George Bush, soon after
September 11, referred to a "crusade"
against al-Qaida, he helped persuade
Muslims that they were under renewed attack
from Richard the Lionheart in a US navy
bomber jacket.In the context of a potential
"clash of civilisations",Bush’s loose use of
language was not only insensitive. It was
unthinkingly reckless.
Bush has avoided the word "crusade" ever
since. But he still regularly talks about the
need to defend "civilisation" and "the civilised
world" against "dark forces". He never quite
says which part of the planet is the
"uncivilised" or "dark" bit. Perhaps he means
Kandahar in Afghanistan or Eastbourne in
England. It is unclear. But the unspoken
implication is deeply divisive, even racist, not
to say insulting.
Words can define how a people sees itself: the
US declaration of independence is one obvious
example. Yet modern-day Palestinians also see
themselves engaged in a struggle for
"independence" and "freedom" from external
oppression. The current US government ignores
such semantic paradoxes. Words such as
"imperialism","emancipation","self-
determination" and "liberation" define how
history is scripted, how the future will be
shaped, how contemporary conflicts are
perceived and thus how they may be resolved.
Terrorism is a salient case in point. In the
abstract, "terrorism" is a terrible thing;
everybody deplores it; nobody supports it. Why
then is terrorism such a growth industry?
Because its definition is not agreed. It depends
where you stand. Terrorism has thus become a
much abused word.
For Donald Rumsfeld, for example, the recent
helicopter attack at Falluja was simply the work
of "terrorists". That statement conceals a larger,
unpalatable truth. To the oppressed of the world,
the men of violence are, variously, militants,
freedom-fighters, guerrillas, insurgents, heroes,
martyrs. The real terrorists belong to the "other
side". Yet "state terrorism" is a concept that is
barely recognised by the ostensible oppressors.
Which brings us back to Bush. By declaring an
open-ended, global "war on terror", Bush invited
every aspiring autocrat to do his worst in the
name of "security" (another much-scandalised
word). From Chechnya to Colombia, Pakistan to
the Philippines, the anti-terror "war" has
expanded with Bush’s blessing.
In this loose-lipped, rapid-fire lingo, such
people, whether killed or locked up in Bagram
or Guantanamo or a thousand other hell-holes,
are by definition "evil". Here, you might think, is
another trap for the unwary, to be sidestepped
by sensible politicians in the secular West. Not
a bit of it. The latest addition to the modern
leader’s essential vocabulary, is WMD. This is
now a universally understood term, or so you
might think. WMD is proliferating, it’s deeply
frightening, and it’s coming to a cinema near
you.
Yet symbolic WMD is also a reason why civil
liberties are everywhere under siege, why
military budgets are rising, why the developing
world is not developing, and why your opinion
is ignored. In fact, WMD is a vague term that
can be used to cover a multitude of supposed
sins. Developed countries have their own WMD,
of course, but their arsenals are somehow
regarded as acceptable. Not so the WMD in
developing countries or "rogue states" (whatever
that means). This species of unauthorised WMD
is deemed destabilising.
There are certain words, conversely, that the
West’s leaders carefully avoid. These include
"resistance" - too encouraging a label for the
"remnants" opposing Iraq’s emancipators,
especially when used with a capital "R", as in
French. And then there is "occupation".
Occupation, as in Iraq, is a no-go word;
liberation is far preferable. Occupation makes it
sound as if the US has barged uninvited into
somebody else’s country and refuses to go
away. It makes Iraq sound like Palestine, Tibet,
Afghanistan or, heaven forbid, Vietnam. That
really is careless, ship-sinking talk.
Greater sensitivity in use of language is
required of politicians
– and indeed the media.
The urge to suppress arguably loaded words
should as a rule be resisted as inimical to free
expression and better understanding. As every
spin doctor knows, acceptance of "official"
terminology can amount to implicit endorsement
of official policy. But the search for the right
word requires constant awareness of ambiguity
and politically and culturally charged, multiple
meanings. As ever in human discourse, there is
truth and there is propaganda. It is important to
be able to tell the difference. Before passing the
ammunition, pass the word.
The Guardian Weekly 20-11-03, page 14
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
