- 7 weeks ago
Documentary, The Trap Part 3 -We Will Force You To Be Free (Adam Curtis)
Category
📚
LearningTranscript
00:00This series of films has told the story of the rise of a narrow and peculiar kind of freedom.
00:07The last two programs have shown how politicians, from both the right and the left,
00:12came to believe in a simplistic model of human beings as self-seeking, almost robotic creatures.
00:19Out of this came a new and simplified idea of politics.
00:24No longer did politicians set out to change the world.
00:27Instead, they saw their job as being to deliver nothing more than what these free individuals wanted.
00:35And at the same time, we too came to think of ourselves as simplified beings,
00:40whose behavior and even feelings could be analyzed objectively by scientific systems,
00:47which told us what was the normal way to feel.
00:49And both we and our leaders have come to believe that this is the true definition of freedom.
00:58There is no other.
01:01But there is.
01:03There is an alternative idea of freedom.
01:09But we have hidden and forgotten about it, because it can be so frightening and dangerous.
01:15It is the dream of not only changing the world, but also transforming people.
01:21And by changing them, you can then free them from themselves.
01:25This film will go back and unearth that forgotten idea of freedom.
01:31It will show why it is so dangerous and why it was hidden.
01:36But it will also show why this idea still haunts us.
01:40Because it inspires people.
01:43It offers hope and meaning in a way that our narrow version of freedom was deliberately designed to exclude.
01:49The architects of our present world set us a terrible trap.
01:56In seeking to protect us from the dangers of the other kind of freedom,
02:01they led us into a world without meaning.
02:04To understand these two ideas of freedom and how they came to oppose each other,
02:29you have to go back to the Oxford of the 1950s
02:32and to a man who did more than anyone to define them.
02:36He was one of the most important liberal thinkers of the 20th century.
02:40He was called Isaiah Berlin.
02:42Berlin was an extraordinary figure.
02:45He was born in St Petersburg and witnessed the Russian Revolution.
02:49His family then fled to Britain.
02:51And Berlin grew up to become one of the central figures in the British establishment.
02:57During the war, he served as a diplomat in America
02:59and got to know many of the young politicians
03:02who would later run America during the Cold War.
03:06In the 50s, Berlin became a political philosopher at Oxford.
03:10And a celebrity.
03:12He was featured in Vogue and appeared regularly on the BBC.
03:16At the heart of Berlin's thought was the question of individual freedom
03:20and how to protect it.
03:22But I think what Freddie says comes to the same, which is a question of freedom.
03:25You want to feel free to make mistakes.
03:30I think I objected to not being reasoned with it.
03:32I object to paternalism.
03:34I mean, ultimately, I think what I object to is being treated like a schoolboy,
03:38being told my own good, that there are certain things to do,
03:40or being driven in a perfectly beneficent direction
03:42by a perfectly disinterested, pure-hearted body of governments or manufacturers.
03:48It doesn't matter which human beings or children.
03:50We must first help them together, create certain institutions,
03:52make them obey orders,
03:53and we hope later they will see how well we've done for them
03:57and they will become rational in the course of...
04:00This is exactly what the British Empire fell towards.
04:03Coloured people in Africa,
04:04it's exactly what schoolmasters feel towards children,
04:06and it always leads to bad consequences in the end.
04:09And for Berlin, the greatest threat to individual freedom in the world
04:14was the Soviet Union.
04:16In October 1956, the Hungarian people had risen up
04:20and toppled their communist government.
04:23In response, Soviet forces invaded
04:25and brutally suppressed the rebellion, massacring thousands.
04:30The Soviet action shocked the world.
04:33And for Berlin, it defined the central paradox of the age.
04:37How could the Soviet system,
04:38which had been designed and built
04:40on the dream of liberating individuals from tyranny,
04:43have become such an oppressive and tyrannical force in the world?
04:48Berlin believed that he had the answer,
04:50and he set out to explain what had happened.
04:54And in doing this,
04:55he was going to offer what he believed
04:57was a better and a safer idea of freedom.
05:00In 1958, Berlin gave a lecture at Oxford,
05:10which he called Two Concepts of Liberty.
05:13It would become one of the key ideological underpinnings
05:16of the Cold War.
05:18There are, he said, in fact, two very different kinds of freedom.
05:22One he called positive liberty,
05:23the other negative liberty.
05:26And to explain them,
05:28Berlin went back into the past.
05:35Both ideas originated, he said,
05:37in the same impulse more than 200 years before,
05:40at the time of the French Revolution,
05:42of individuals wanting to free themselves
05:44from the oppression of tyrants and despots.
05:48Positive liberty, Berlin explained,
05:51was born out of the belief
05:52of those who led these revolutions,
05:54that to be truly free,
05:56people had to be transformed.
05:58They had to become better, rational beings.
06:00And only the leaders knew
06:03what that ideal human being should be
06:05and how it could be created.
06:09This, Berlin said,
06:11led to a terrible logic in all revolutions.
06:14The masses,
06:16who did not realise what true freedom was,
06:19had to be coerced.
06:28At the height of the French Revolution,
06:30the Jacobin leader, Robespierre,
06:32explained this.
06:34Terror for a revolutionary government,
06:36he said,
06:36is very different from the terror
06:38used by tyrants in the past.
06:40Because now,
06:41it meant the destruction of those
06:43whose moral corruption
06:44was barring the way
06:46to a new society of virtue.
06:49Terror has become, he said,
06:51the despotism of liberty
06:53against tyranny.
07:01Another of the Jacobins,
07:02Saint-Just,
07:03put it more simply.
07:05We must force the people
07:07to be free.
07:10From the French terror
07:11to the show trials
07:12and the mass executions
07:13in the Soviet Union,
07:15this logic always led,
07:16Berlin argued,
07:17to horror
07:18and the very opposite
07:19of freedom.
07:21Positive liberty,
07:22he said,
07:23would always fail
07:24because it was driven
07:25by a false belief
07:26that there was one true answer
07:28to all human ills.
07:31Once you believe that,
07:32the idea of the final answer
07:34to human ills,
07:36if it is the final answer,
07:37then no sacrifice
07:38is too great for it.
07:38And even if you have
07:40to kill people for it,
07:41this is the one end,
07:43the permanent bliss,
07:44happiness of mankind
07:46is surely worth it.
07:49If you believe
07:50there is a single answer
07:51to a single question,
07:52the true answer,
07:53all the other answers
07:53being false,
07:55you see,
07:55and all these answers
07:56can be put together
07:57and harmonized with each other
07:58and create the perfect universe,
08:01then there is a temptation,
08:03if you think you have it,
08:05to do awful things.
08:08Against this corrupt ideal,
08:11Berlin defined
08:12his other idea of freedom,
08:14negative liberty.
08:16Negative liberty,
08:17he said,
08:17is the freedom
08:18of all individuals
08:19to do what they want
08:21and nothing more.
08:23There should be government
08:24and laws
08:24to ensure that individuals' actions
08:26do not interfere
08:28with each other's freedoms.
08:29But other than that,
08:31power should be restrained.
08:34Negative liberty
08:35was a society
08:36deliberately without ideals,
08:37other than individuals' desires
08:39and the freedom
08:40to indulge them.
08:44As the last two programs showed,
08:46this was a similar vision
08:47to the ideas
08:48of the economists
08:49and the technocrats
08:50of the Cold War.
08:52They had put forward
08:53an idea of a society
08:54comprised only of millions
08:56of self-seeking individuals,
08:57which, their mathematics said,
09:00would lead automatically
09:01to stability and order.
09:03What Berlin was doing
09:08was giving this vision
09:10a sense of destiny
09:11and historical inevitability.
09:16By counterposing negative liberty
09:23to positive liberty
09:25with its inevitable horrors,
09:27Berlin was saying
09:27that this kind of society
09:29was the only safe alternative
09:31for the West
09:32in the Cold War.
09:33It was the kind of freedom
09:35it was fighting for.
09:40Berlin's lecture was published
09:42and it became
09:43a defining vision
09:44for a generation
09:45who set out
09:46to educate the masses
09:47that all attempts
09:48at revolution,
09:49however seductive
09:50and romantic,
09:51would always lead
09:52to disaster.
09:53and that power
09:56always had to be restrained.
10:00What is that I hear?
10:01That note of urgency,
10:03of indignation,
10:04of spiritual hunger.
10:07Yes, it's Beethoven.
10:08It's the sound
10:09of European man
10:10once more reaching
10:11for something
10:12beyond his grasp.
10:14Oh, freedom, freedom,
10:16come to us again.
10:17This cry has echoed
10:19through all the countless
10:20revolutionary movements
10:21of the last century.
10:28They've suffered
10:29from the most terrible
10:31of all delusions.
10:33They believed themselves
10:34to be virtuous
10:35and in the end
10:37were destroyed
10:38by the evil means
10:39they had brought
10:39into existence.
10:41And the other half
10:43of the message
10:43from the Cold War
10:44intellectuals
10:45was that systems
10:46should be created
10:47to restrain
10:48politicians' power,
10:50especially those leaders
10:51who said they wanted
10:52to do good for us
10:53because inexorably
10:55they would become tyrants.
10:57Every tyrant
10:58in history
10:59has said
11:00that he wants power
11:02to do good
11:03to his fellows.
11:04But don't you think
11:06that the necessary thing
11:08is to check
11:09and stop people
11:11having power?
11:11I hate government.
11:13I hate power.
11:14I think that man's
11:17existence
11:17insofar as he achieves
11:19anything
11:20is to resist power,
11:22to minimise power,
11:24to devise systems
11:25of society
11:26in which power
11:27is the least exerted.
11:29Yes.
11:32But Isaiah Berlin
11:33knew that it was
11:34going to be difficult
11:35to achieve and maintain
11:36this negative idea
11:37of freedom.
11:38And in his lecture
11:40and throughout his life
11:41he warned
11:42of the danger
11:43it would face.
11:45Those who promote
11:46negative liberty
11:47has never come to believe
11:49it is an absolute ideal
11:50because such a belief
11:53in one final answer
11:54always leads to coercion
11:56and the opposite
11:57of freedom.
11:59But this was exactly
12:00what was going to happen
12:01and Berlin's warning
12:03would become a prophecy.
12:04Ironically,
12:13this corruption
12:14of negative liberty
12:15would begin
12:16with the resurgence
12:17of positive liberty.
12:19In the wake
12:20of the Soviet disaster
12:21a new and even more
12:22extreme version
12:23of positive liberty
12:24was about to rise up
12:25in the Third World.
12:27It would be
12:28a revolutionary vision
12:29of transforming individuals
12:31through violence.
12:32It would spread
12:33and begin to destabilize
12:35the balance of power
12:36in the world.
12:37In response,
12:38the followers
12:39of negative liberty
12:40in the West
12:40would decide
12:41that they had to confront
12:42and roll back
12:43this tide.
12:45Out of this
12:46would emerge
12:46a strange mutant idea.
12:49You would use
12:49violent revolutionary techniques
12:51to create a world
12:53of negative freedom.
12:54In the late 50s,
13:07a series of wars
13:07of liberation began.
13:09People who had been ruled
13:10by colonial powers
13:11fought to free themselves.
13:14One of the first
13:15was the Algerian Revolution,
13:17led by a Marxist group,
13:18the FLN.
13:20Out of the struggle
13:21emerged a powerful new figure,
13:23a black intellectual
13:24called Frantz Fanon,
13:25who became a leading
13:26ideologist of the revolution.
13:30Fanon believed
13:30that the West
13:31exercised its control
13:33by getting inside
13:34people's minds,
13:35turning them
13:36into passive zombies.
13:38The only way
13:39for individuals
13:40to free themselves
13:40from this,
13:41he said,
13:42was through violence,
13:43including terrorism.
13:44Violence was not just
13:54a battle against
13:54the military.
13:55The very experience
13:57of the armed struggle
13:58would, Fanon said,
13:59be cathartic.
14:01It would awaken
14:02the revolutionaries
14:03from the West's
14:04insidious form of control
14:05and turn them
14:06into what he called
14:07new men.
14:09A famous film
14:10called The Battle of Algiers
14:12was made,
14:12which dramatised
14:13Fanon's ideas.
14:14This is the bit
14:17that interests Fanon,
14:19the seizure of liberty
14:20by the oppressed people.
14:22And he thought
14:22that there was
14:23something liberating
14:24about that very act
14:25of armed seizure,
14:26of defeating the enemy,
14:28and the self-respect
14:30which would arise
14:31from an autonomous
14:32struggle of that kind.
14:38Constructing
14:38the new man
14:40entirely,
14:41the freed
14:41out of this struggle,
14:43as if, you know,
14:44the traumas
14:45of the past,
14:46of previous relations
14:47could be wished away,
14:49as if the Revolutionary War
14:50would be a sort of
14:51blanking out
14:52of everything,
14:54and a complete
14:54tabula rasa,
14:55start again
14:56from the beginning.
14:56Behind Fanon's ideas
15:09was a very specific
15:10Western idea
15:11of freedom,
15:12the existential ideas
15:14of the philosopher
15:15Jean-Paul Sartre.
15:17Fanon had been educated
15:18in Paris
15:19in the 1950s,
15:20and had become
15:21a friend of Sartre's.
15:22And he had been
15:24deeply influenced
15:25by Sartre's idea
15:26that individuals
15:27are trapped
15:28in a narrow
15:28and bleak idea
15:29of freedom
15:30by the pressures
15:31of the society
15:32around them.
15:34To achieve true freedom,
15:35Sartre said,
15:36one had to find ways
15:38to break through
15:38this illusion.
15:43And what Fanon did
15:45was turn this idea
15:46into a revolutionary theory.
15:48And his ideas
15:51became the guiding force
15:52behind nearly
15:53all the Third World
15:54revolutions
15:55of the 60s
15:56and the 70s.
15:57They inspired
15:58Che Guevara,
15:59Yasser Arafat,
16:00and Steve Beaker
16:01in South Africa.
16:06And Fanon's ideas
16:08also inspired
16:09Sartre himself.
16:12Sartre believed
16:12that they could be applied
16:13not just in the Third World,
16:15but in the West itself.
16:16He became convinced
16:18that it was only
16:19through revolutionary violence
16:20that individuals
16:21in the West
16:22could truly free themselves
16:23from the controls
16:25of bourgeois society.
16:30You have to understand
16:32that all revolutionaries
16:34understand today
16:35that there is no way
16:37of overthrowing
16:39modern society
16:40except by violence
16:41for the very good reason
16:42that this society
16:44defends itself
16:45by repression
16:46and violence.
16:48I'm defending
16:49a revolutionary cause
16:50because my personal goal,
16:53which is that
16:54of all those here,
16:55is to overthrow
16:56bourgeois society.
17:05Out of ideas
17:06like these
17:06came waves
17:07of terrorist attacks
17:08in Europe
17:09in the early 70s.
17:10those who led
17:12the attacks
17:12believed that the terror
17:13was a way
17:14of breaking through
17:15the bourgeois facade
17:16to a new freedom.
17:20Then, in 1975,
17:22the logic of this idea
17:24reached its most extreme incarnation,
17:26when the Khmer Rouge revolutionaries
17:28liberated Cambodia.
17:30Their leader, Pol Pot,
17:32had also studied
17:33revolutionary theories
17:34in Paris.
17:35and he believed
17:36that the only way
17:37for Cambodian society
17:39to reach utopia
17:40was to destroy
17:41the whole
17:42of bourgeois society
17:43and start again,
17:45back to year zero.
17:47Within hours
17:48of arriving
17:49in the capital,
17:50Phnom Penh,
17:51the Khmer Rouge
17:51set about slaughtering
17:53all the middle classes,
17:54some three million people
17:56in the end,
17:57because under Pol Pot's logic,
17:59they stood in the way
18:00of allowing the rest
18:01of the people
18:01to become truly
18:03free individuals.
18:07Pol Pot also appealed
18:08to many Cambodians
18:09living in France,
18:11intellectuals,
18:12professionals,
18:13doctors, teachers,
18:14to come back
18:14to Cambodia
18:16in 1975, 1976,
18:18to help with
18:19the new regime
18:20to build a new society.
18:22And many of them,
18:23when they came back,
18:24were actually slaughtered,
18:26murdered,
18:26actually,
18:26on the airport
18:27when they arrived
18:28in the plains.
18:29Just this was a sort
18:30of wanton destruction
18:31of any opposition,
18:33of any sort of
18:34intellectual differences
18:36that the society
18:38that Pol Pot was going
18:39to build
18:39would have no opposition
18:41inside or outside
18:42of Cambodia.
18:44The chaos
18:45caused by these revolutions
18:46also began to destabilise
18:49the balance of power
18:50in the world.
18:51And this would inexorably
18:52bring them face to face
18:53with America
18:54and its global battle
18:56against communism.
18:58But what this clash
18:59was going to lead to
19:00was the rise in America
19:02of a new,
19:03militant idea
19:04of freedom
19:04and the belief
19:06that it was
19:06the United States' duty
19:08to spread this freedom
19:09around the world
19:10by force,
19:11if necessary.
19:17Ever since the
19:18Second World War,
19:19American governments
19:20had struggled
19:20to contain
19:21the spread of communism.
19:23And the wave
19:24of Third World revolutions
19:25was a dangerous new phase
19:27in this battle.
19:29To try and stop it,
19:30during the 1960s
19:31and 70s,
19:32American governments
19:33adopted a ruthless strategy
19:34backing dictators
19:36and tyrants
19:36around the world
19:37who offered
19:38to contain
19:39these revolutionary forces.
19:41They did this
19:42by repressing
19:43or killing
19:44thousands
19:45of their own people.
19:46The main architect
19:56of this policy
19:57was Henry Kissinger,
19:59Secretary of State
19:59under President Nixon.
20:01He used America's power
20:03to back dictators
20:04like General Pinochet
20:06in Chile
20:06and Ferdinand Marcos
20:08in the Philippines.
20:11Kissinger knew
20:11that these dictators
20:12used torture
20:13and mass killing
20:14to stay in power.
20:15But in his theory
20:17of what he called
20:18realpolitik,
20:19this was the price
20:20that had to be paid
20:21if Soviet tyranny
20:22was to be kept in check.
20:25But during the 70s,
20:27a group of young radicals
20:29emerged in Washington
20:30who believed
20:31that this was wrong.
20:33For America
20:34to support torture
20:35and killing
20:35was a corruption
20:37of its ideals.
20:40They became known
20:41as the neoconservatives
20:42and what linked them
20:44was the vision
20:44was the vision
20:44of a new moral
20:45kind of foreign policy.
20:48America should actively
20:49use its great power
20:50to spread democracy
20:52in the world.
20:54One of this group
20:55was Michael Ledeen.
20:56He called himself
20:57a democratic revolutionary.
21:00We were aiming
21:01for an expansion
21:02of the zone
21:04of freedom
21:04in the world
21:05and in part
21:07that had to do
21:07with fighting communism
21:08and in part
21:09it had to do
21:10with fighting
21:10other kinds of tyrannies.
21:12But that's what
21:12we were about.
21:13It's what we're still about.
21:14We want, you know,
21:15down with tyranny.
21:17We want free countries.
21:19We think that America
21:20is better off
21:21if we live in a world
21:22primarily populated
21:23with free countries
21:24who have to appeal
21:26to their own people
21:27for the source
21:28of their power
21:28and to ratify
21:30their decisions.
21:31And we think that
21:32if the whole world
21:34were like that
21:35then we would
21:35be much more secure.
21:37We're democratic revolutionaries.
21:39We wanted to spread freedom
21:41everywhere we could.
21:43And it wasn't just
21:44communist dictators
21:45that we hated.
21:45We hated them all.
21:49And then,
21:50in 1979,
21:51the Iranian revolution
21:52showed dramatically
21:53that America's policy
21:55of backing dictators
21:56did not work.
21:58The Iranian people
21:59rose up
21:59and toppled
22:00the Shah of Iran.
22:03The Shah had one
22:04of the largest
22:04military forces
22:05in the world
22:06given to him
22:07by the Americans.
22:09But it proved helpless
22:10in the face
22:11of the new
22:12Islamist ideology
22:13of Ayatollah Khomeini.
22:17Many in the West
22:18saw Khomeini
22:19as the resurgence
22:19of a dark,
22:20almost medieval force.
22:23But this was wrong.
22:25The Iranian revolution
22:26was yet again
22:27driven by Western ideas
22:28of political freedom.
22:30Behind it
22:34lay the ideas
22:35of a young
22:35Iranian teacher
22:36called Ali Shariati.
22:39Shariati is an
22:40extraordinary historical figure
22:42because he single-handedly
22:44fused the ideas
22:45of Jean-Paul Sartre
22:46and Frantz Fanon
22:47with Shia Islam
22:49to produce a completely
22:50new revolutionary ideology.
22:53And it was this ideology
22:55that lay behind
22:56Ayatollah Khomeini's
22:57radical vision
22:58of political Islam.
23:02Like so many revolutionaries,
23:04Shariati had studied
23:05in Paris
23:06in the early 60s.
23:08And he had become
23:09fascinated
23:09by Sartre's ideas
23:11of true freedom
23:12and Fanon's theories
23:13of how to use
23:14armed struggle
23:15to achieve it.
23:17Shariati translated
23:19both Fanon and Sartre
23:20into Farsi.
23:21What he added
23:23to their theories
23:23was the idea
23:24that Shia Islam
23:26could be used
23:26to give meaning
23:27and purpose
23:28to the armed struggle
23:29and the utopia
23:30it would achieve.
23:32This was a radically
23:33new interpretation.
23:36Since the 7th century,
23:37Shia Islam
23:38had been an apolitical
23:39and passive force.
23:41Its leaders,
23:42the Ayatollahs,
23:43told the people
23:44that they must not
23:45involve themselves
23:45in political struggle.
23:47They should wait patiently
23:49and endure all hardships
23:50until the coming
23:51of the true Imam.
23:58But Shariati
23:59had turned Shia Islam
24:01into a revolutionary
24:02political force
24:03that yet again
24:04offered to liberate people
24:06and transform them
24:07in the here and now.
24:11It was these ideas
24:12that Ayatollah Khomeini
24:14had taken up
24:14and used
24:15to overwhelm
24:16America's ally.
24:19And in the slogans
24:20shouted on the streets
24:21in Tehran,
24:22what you hear
24:23are the Western ideas
24:24of positive liberty
24:25and the theories
24:27of France Fanon.
24:40Mr. Reagan
24:41is for freedom
24:42and he is
24:44for the people.
24:46Ladies and gentlemen,
24:47the next president
24:48of the United States
24:49of America,
24:50Ronald Reagan!
24:52In 1980,
24:53Ronald Reagan
24:54ran for president.
24:55His campaign message
24:56was simple.
24:57He promised freedom
24:58at home and abroad.
25:01When he was elected,
25:02many of the young
25:03neoconservatives
25:04joined his administration
25:05and their ideas
25:07became central
25:07to the new foreign policy.
25:10In October 1981,
25:12the new secretary of state,
25:13Alexander Hayd,
25:14announced to a startled Senate
25:16a new moral crusade
25:18by America
25:19to extend freedom
25:20in the world
25:20by force,
25:22if necessary.
25:23There are things
25:26that we Americans
25:28must be willing
25:28to fight for.
25:31I think...
25:32You know,
25:32this republic
25:32was spawned
25:34by armed conflict.
25:37The freedoms and liberties
25:38that we enjoy today
25:39were a consequence
25:41of armed conflict,
25:43insurrection,
25:44if you will.
25:45There are things
25:46worth fighting for.
25:48We must understand that.
25:49we must structure
25:50our policy
25:51under that credible
25:52and justified premise.
25:55President Reagan
25:56signed a series
25:56of directives
25:57that set up
25:58what was called
25:58Project Democracy.
26:00It had two parts.
26:03One set up
26:03a series of organisations
26:04whose job
26:05was to openly promote
26:07the idea of democracy
26:08abroad.
26:09This set out
26:10to support groups
26:11like Solidarity
26:12in Poland,
26:13but it also helped
26:14overthrow the dictators
26:15who had been
26:16America's allies.
26:18The Reagan administration
26:19forced both
26:20Ferdinand Marcos
26:21and General Pinochet
26:23to call elections,
26:24which led
26:25to their downfall.
26:29Revolution in the Philippines
26:30as the Americans
26:31abandoned Marcos.
26:32And now the White House
26:33wants to get rid
26:34of the man
26:35who for so long
26:36has been their ally.
26:38And at the same time,
26:40the Americans set up
26:41what they called
26:41Schools for Democracy
26:42to train the new politicians
26:44in these countries.
26:47But the democracy
26:48that the Americans
26:49wanted to create
26:50was deliberately simplified.
26:53One of the ideologists
26:54who inspired
26:55Project Democracy,
26:56Samuel Huntington,
26:57who would later
26:58become famous
26:58for coining the phrase
27:00the clash of civilisations,
27:02made this clear.
27:04It was a modest form
27:05of democracy,
27:06he said,
27:07where the people
27:07are allowed to vote
27:08but nothing else
27:10has changed.
27:11The wider ideas
27:12of democracy,
27:13of redistributing
27:14land and wealth
27:15and creating equality,
27:17must not be tried
27:18because that can only
27:20be done through coercion.
27:22And following the logic
27:23of Isaiah Berlin,
27:25that would inevitably
27:25lead to tyranny.
27:28And this is exactly
27:29what did happen.
27:31Democracy came
27:32to the Philippines.
27:34But real power
27:35simply shifted
27:35to a new set of elites
27:37and the vast inequalities
27:39and the corruption
27:40remained unchanged.
27:42It was a modest
27:43kind of freedom.
27:50The other part
27:51of Project Democracy
27:52was to use military force
27:54in secret operations
27:55to overthrow
27:56foreign regimes
27:57that stood in the way
27:59of freedom.
28:00The main target
28:01was the government
28:02of Nicaragua,
28:03the Sandinistas.
28:04The Sandinistas
28:06were Marxist revolutionaries
28:07who had seized power
28:08in 1979.
28:10But since then
28:11they had held elections
28:12and had been
28:13democratically elected.
28:15The Reagan administration
28:17dismissed this
28:17though as a sham.
28:19And an operation
28:20was set up
28:21to enforce
28:21the right kind
28:22of democracy
28:23by overthrowing
28:24the Sandinistas
28:25if necessary.
28:27The man in charge
28:28was a leading
28:29neoconservative,
28:30Elliot Abrams.
28:32What we seek
28:33is democracy
28:33in Nicaragua,
28:34a Nicaragua
28:35peace with its
28:36inhabitants
28:37and with its neighbors.
28:38That might not
28:39require a change
28:41in the government.
28:42What it requires
28:43is a change
28:43in the policy
28:44of that government
28:44at the very least.
28:45You want them
28:45to surrender
28:46to the United States
28:47definition?
28:48You want them
28:48to stop
28:49subverting their neighbors
28:50and repressing
28:51the people of Nicaragua.
28:52Now, does that require
28:53the overthrow
28:54of the government?
28:54Well, it doesn't
28:56if they change
28:56their behavior.
28:58And that's the question.
28:59What do you need
29:00to do to get them
29:01to change their behavior?
29:02The answer is
29:03pressure.
29:04The Americans
29:04started funding
29:05and training
29:06a counter-revolutionary
29:07army called
29:08the Contras.
29:09But there was
29:10enormous political
29:11opposition in the
29:12United States.
29:13To get rounded,
29:14the leaders
29:15of Project Democracy
29:16set out to frighten
29:17the American public.
29:19An agency
29:20called the Office
29:21of Public Diplomacy
29:22was set up
29:23that disseminated
29:24what was called
29:25white propaganda.
29:27It produced
29:28dossiers
29:28and fed stories
29:29to journalists
29:30that proved
29:31that Soviet
29:32fighter planes
29:32had arrived
29:33in Nicaragua
29:34to attack America.
29:36Another story
29:37from intelligence sources
29:39said that the Soviets
29:40had given stockpiles
29:41of chemical weapons
29:42to the Sandinistas.
29:45President Reagan
29:46appeared on television
29:47with maps
29:48to show how quickly
29:49such a chemical attack
29:50could be launched
29:51on America itself.
29:53It was only
29:54a matter of time.
29:55The simple questions are
29:59will we support freedom
30:02in this hemisphere
30:02or not?
30:04Will we defend
30:05our vital interests
30:06in this hemisphere
30:06or not?
30:08Will we stop
30:09the spread of communism
30:10in this hemisphere
30:11or not?
30:13Will we act
30:14while there is still time?
30:16Reagan also told America
30:18that Nicaragua
30:19was part of an axis
30:20of rogue states
30:21including Iran
30:22and North Korea
30:23who together
30:24ran a global network
30:26of terror.
30:28Those who ran
30:28the Office of Public Diplomacy
30:30called this technique
30:31perception management.
30:34The thinking was
30:36that if you could control
30:37the perceptions
30:37of the American people
30:38about events
30:39that that would
30:40help them
30:41help you bring them
30:42on board.
30:43If they thought
30:44something was a huge threat
30:45to them
30:46they perceived it that way
30:47then they would react
30:49a certain way.
30:49They would react
30:50in support
30:50of a more aggressive policy.
30:52Well you try to convince
30:53that the American people
30:54that these folks
30:55are out to get you.
30:56So we had even
30:57we had extreme
30:58suggestions
31:00that the Sandinistas
31:02in Nicaragua
31:02who were a rather
31:03pathetic force
31:05having been to Nicaragua
31:08and seen them
31:08that they would somehow
31:10be threatening Texas
31:11or they'd be threatening
31:12the Panama Canal.
31:13Today El Salvador
31:15and Guatemala
31:15tomorrow
31:16the United States.
31:19You could take
31:19small threats
31:20and make them
31:20huge threats.
31:21You can make
31:22the Sandinistas
31:23appear like they're
31:24going to conquer
31:25the United States.
31:27What was happening
31:28was that the
31:29neoconservatives
31:30were beginning to believe
31:31that their ideal
31:32of freedom
31:33was an absolute
31:34and that this then
31:35justified lying
31:36and exaggerating
31:38in order to enforce
31:39that vision.
31:40That the end
31:41justified the means.
31:44Although they portrayed
31:45the Contras
31:46as freedom fighters
31:47it was well known
31:48that they used
31:49murder, assassination
31:50and torture
31:51and also
31:52were allegedly
31:53using CIA supplied
31:55planes to smuggle
31:56cocaine back
31:57into the United States.
31:59And to finance
32:01the Contras
32:01the neoconservatives
32:03were even prepared
32:04to deal with
32:04America's enemy
32:05the leaders
32:06of the Iranian revolution.
32:09In 1985
32:11those running
32:12the Nicaragua
32:12operation
32:13held a series
32:14of secret meetings
32:15with Iranian leaders
32:16in Europe.
32:18They arranged
32:19to sell the Iranians
32:20American weapons.
32:22In return
32:22the Iranians
32:23would release
32:24American hostages
32:25held in Lebanon.
32:27Then the money
32:28from these sales
32:29would be used
32:30by those running
32:31Project Democracy
32:32to fund the Contras.
32:34The only problem
32:36was that this
32:37was completely illegal
32:38and the President
32:40knew it.
32:41We are negotiating
32:41is that right?
32:42Okay let's have a
32:43We are going through
32:44channels we can't discuss.
32:46When are you going to
32:47come back and see us again?
32:48How soon?
32:48When are you going to see us?
32:49Let's have another press
32:50do it again.
32:51Did the Vice President
32:53object to this plan
32:55in Iran Mr President?
32:56No.
32:58You said that
32:58Schultz and Weinberger
32:59didn't.
33:00Did the Vice President?
33:02No.
33:02What was beginning
33:06to emerge
33:06was the problem
33:07with spreading
33:08the ideal of freedom
33:09around the world.
33:11To do it
33:12those leading
33:12Project Democracy
33:13had turned
33:14not just to
33:15manipulation and violence
33:16but were beginning
33:18to undermine
33:18the ideals of democracy
33:20in America.
33:21The very thing
33:22they were trying
33:23to create abroad.
33:25It was the corruption
33:26of freedom
33:27that Isaiah Berlin
33:28had warned of.
33:32But all these
33:35problems were about
33:36to be put aside
33:37because the West's
33:38idea of freedom
33:39was about to
33:40triumph in the Cold War.
33:58In 1989
33:59across Eastern Europe
34:00the people rose up
34:02to overthrow
34:02their Communist leaders.
34:05It was a remarkable
34:06series of revolutions
34:07all driven
34:08by the desire
34:08for freedom
34:09and the ending
34:10of tyranny.
34:12The momentum
34:13of these revolutions
34:14was unstoppable
34:15until in December 1991
34:17the Soviet Union
34:19was finally dissolved
34:20and Boris Yeltsin
34:21became President
34:22of Russia.
34:24For many in the West
34:26above all American
34:27this was the triumph
34:28of liberal democracy
34:29and its ideals.
34:30This belief
34:32was summed up
34:33in the epic argument
34:34put forward
34:34by the political philosopher
34:36Francis Foucault
34:36that the world
34:39had arrived
34:39at the end of history.
34:41All competing ideologies
34:43he said
34:43were now dead
34:44and liberal democracy
34:45would spread unchallenged
34:47around the world.
34:49What you've seen happening
34:51in this century
34:52when we began it
34:53there were many competitors
34:55to liberal democracy
34:56left over hereditary monarchies
34:59fascist dictatorships
35:00communist totalitarianism
35:02and virtually all
35:03of those major competitors
35:04have now disappeared
35:06by the end
35:07of the 20th century
35:08so that in a way
35:09it indicates
35:11that liberal democracy
35:12is now spread
35:13in place of these
35:15that liberal democracy
35:16in the end
35:17is the best arrangement
35:18of politics
35:19by which people
35:20can be recognized
35:21on a kind of universal
35:22and rational basis.
35:28Out of this
35:29was going to come
35:30an epic revolutionary attempt
35:31to reconstruct the world.
35:34The aim
35:34would be to create
35:35a utopia
35:36based on the idea
35:37of negative liberty.
35:40It would be a world
35:41in which all individuals
35:42would be free
35:43to do what they wanted
35:44without coercion
35:45by elites
35:46or tyrants
35:47any longer.
35:49It would be the triumph
35:50of Isaiah Berlin's
35:51idea of freedom
35:52and it would begin
35:54in Russia.
36:02In 1992
36:03the American government
36:04had passed
36:05the Freedom Support Act.
36:07Its aim
36:07was to help Russia
36:08reconstruct itself.
36:10Along with millions
36:11of dollars of aid
36:12came a group
36:13of young American advisors
36:14economists
36:15and political theorists
36:17who had a radical vision
36:18of what was necessary.
36:20They called it
36:20shock therapy.
36:23The aim
36:24was to remove
36:25all state control
36:26over the Russian economy
36:27at a stroke.
36:28All price subsidies
36:29would be removed
36:30and all state industries
36:32privatized overnight.
36:35Their leader
36:35was a Harvard economist
36:37called Jeffrey Sachs.
36:39We have the best hope
36:40right now,
36:41the best reformers,
36:42the most westward-looking
36:43leaders in this country,
36:45but there are people
36:46around that want
36:47a close-up
36:48that are the xenophobes,
36:49that are the extreme nationalists,
36:51that believe that the west
36:53has stabbed this country
36:54in the back.
36:54There are real possibilities
36:56of political disaster
36:57lurking here.
36:58It's not a matter of days,
37:00but it is a matter
37:01of weeks and months
37:02and the people
37:03must have hope.
37:05The Americans allied themselves
37:07with a group of young
37:08radical free marketeers
37:09around Yeltsin
37:10and together
37:11they drew up a plan.
37:14Underlying it
37:15was a theory
37:15of how to transform society
37:17by creating new human beings.
37:20As last week's programme showed,
37:22it was the same theory
37:23that lay behind the rise
37:25of what was called
37:25market democracy
37:26in Britain and America
37:28in the 1980s.
37:30The theory said
37:31that if one destroyed
37:33all the elite institutions
37:34that in the past
37:35had told people what to do
37:37and instead allowed
37:39individuals to become
37:40independent in the marketplace,
37:42then they would become
37:43new kinds of rational beings,
37:46choosing what they wanted.
37:48Out of this
37:49would come a new form
37:50of order
37:50and a new kind
37:52of democracy
37:52in which the market,
37:54not politics,
37:55gave people
37:56what they wanted.
37:58But things didn't work out
37:59as the theory predicted.
38:07On the first day of the plan,
38:15all price controls
38:16in Russia were removed
38:17and the cost
38:18of all goods soared.
38:20Millions of people
38:21found themselves
38:22unable to afford
38:23even the most basic
38:24of goods
38:25and with no one
38:26to help them.
38:28The only solution
38:29for millions of Russians
38:30was to come out
38:31onto the streets
38:32and sell their belongings
38:33for anything
38:34they could get.
38:37The chaos began
38:47to spread
38:47as the currency
38:48no longer
38:49had any value.
38:51Factories began
38:51to pay their workers
38:52in the products
38:53they made,
38:54which the people
38:55then had to sell
38:56wherever they could
38:57in order to live.
38:58Then the privatisation
39:08plan kicked in.
39:10Every Russian
39:10was given vouchers
39:11to buy shares
39:12in the privatised
39:13companies.
39:15But desperate
39:15for cash,
39:16they simply sold
39:17their vouchers
39:18to ruthless businessmen
39:19for a fraction
39:20of their worth.
39:22And a new elite
39:23began to emerge
39:24who snapped up
39:25vast sections
39:26of Russian industry.
39:28They became known
39:29as the oligarchs.
39:33Faced with this,
39:34the deputies
39:34in the Russian parliament
39:35began to protest
39:36against what they called
39:38economic genocide.
39:41It led to chaos
39:42and violence
39:43inside parliament.
39:45And in the face
39:46of this,
39:47the group of reformers
39:48around Yeltsin
39:49persuaded him
39:50he had to suspend
39:51parliament.
39:51In protest,
40:11the deputies
40:12occupied parliament.
40:15Yeltsin's response
40:16was brutal.
40:17He ordered
40:18the army
40:18to attack.
40:19the deputies
40:22were arrested
40:22and Yeltsin
40:24announced that
40:24he would now
40:25rule by decree.
40:28Shock therapy
40:29continued,
40:30but in future,
40:31people were going
40:32to be made free
40:33through force
40:34and dictatorship.
40:39But what actually
40:40happened is that
40:41Yeltsin became
40:41the creature
40:42of those with
40:43the real power
40:44in the new Russia,
40:45the oligarchs.
40:46In return for loans,
40:49Yeltsin gave oligarchs
40:50like Boris Berezovsky
40:51the rest of Russian industry,
40:54sometimes at less than
40:552% of its real value.
41:01And then,
41:02in 1998,
41:04the experiment
41:05came dramatically
41:06to an end.
41:07Russia's economy
41:08is out of control tonight
41:09and it's causing
41:10an international
41:11financial crisis.
41:12Huge queues in Moscow,
41:14there's a run on the banks,
41:15the rubles lost nearly
41:16half its value
41:17and prices are soaring.
41:20I found them
41:21frightened,
41:23baffled
41:23and angry.
41:25My money,
41:26she says,
41:26they won't give me
41:27my own money.
41:28What shall I do?
41:32I called Smolensky,
41:34the head of the bank,
41:35but his secretary
41:35said he wasn't in.
41:36It's horrible.
41:38The days of
41:39economic reform
41:40seem to be
41:41well and truly
41:42over here.
41:43Out of this
41:45economic catastrophe,
41:47a new order
41:47emerged.
41:49But it wasn't
41:49the spontaneous order
41:50dreamt of
41:51by the free market
41:52utopians.
41:53It was the very
41:54opposite,
41:55a harsh,
41:56tough nationalism
41:57imposed by
41:58the new president,
41:59Vladimir Putin.
42:01Putin arrested
42:02or exiled
42:03the major oligarchs
42:04and set about
42:05dismantling
42:06many of the
42:07democratic freedoms
42:08in the new Russia.
42:09But this was welcomed
42:11by the majority
42:12of Russians
42:12who now wanted
42:14order,
42:15not freedom.
42:16The people are
42:17interested in
42:19getting their
42:20wages paid
42:22in time.
42:22They want
42:23electricity
42:23back into their
42:25homes.
42:25Many of them
42:26are disillusioned
42:29in democratic
42:31values,
42:32don't care about
42:33freedom of speech,
42:34freedom of press,
42:35many other freedoms.
42:36The idea of
42:40negative freedom
42:40that the market
42:41utopians had
42:42tried to create
42:43in Russia
42:43was based on
42:45a scientific idea
42:46of human beings
42:46as rational,
42:48calculating individuals
42:49who sought
42:50only their own
42:51desires and
42:51advantage.
42:53When Isaiah Berlin
42:54had defined that
42:55model back in
42:56the days of the
42:57Cold War,
42:58it had had a
42:58meaning and
42:59purpose as a
43:00safe alternative
43:01to the threat
43:02of communist
43:02tyranny.
43:04But now,
43:05in this new
43:06world,
43:07the grandeur
43:07that Berlin
43:08had given
43:08it fell
43:09away.
43:10And negative
43:11freedom was
43:11being revealed
43:12as the limited
43:13idea it really
43:14is.
43:16What President
43:17Putin could
43:18offer Russians
43:19were other
43:20things,
43:21security,
43:22dignity,
43:23and above
43:23all,
43:23a meaning
43:24that went
43:25beyond their
43:25own individual
43:26lives.
43:27We
43:29вместе
43:29защитили
43:30большую
43:31советскую
43:33родину,
43:35сохранили
43:36независимость
43:37нашей страны.
43:39Мы
43:39привыкли
43:40побеждать.
43:42Эта
43:42привычка
43:43вошла
43:45нам в
43:45кровь,
43:47стала
43:47залогом
43:48не только
43:48военных
43:49побед.
43:51Еще
43:51не раз
43:52она
43:52выручит
43:53в мирной
43:54жизни.
43:54But at
43:58the start
43:59of the
43:5921st
43:59century,
44:00there was
44:00going to
44:01be one
44:01more
44:01heroic
44:02attempt
44:02to
44:03spread
44:03the
44:03idea
44:04of
44:04negative
44:04liberty
44:04around
44:05the
44:05world.
44:07And
44:07one of
44:08the
44:08central
44:08figures
44:09in
44:09this
44:09utopian
44:10mission
44:10was
44:11going
44:11to
44:11be
44:11the
44:11British
44:12Prime
44:12Minister
44:12Tony
44:13Blair.
44:14Right,
44:15good
44:16morning
44:16everyone.
44:18Now
44:18in a
44:18moment
44:18Michael's
44:20going to
44:20talk to
44:20you about
44:21When
44:21New
44:22Labour
44:22came
44:22to
44:22power
44:23they
44:23had
44:23tried
44:24to
44:24apply
44:24the
44:24simplified
44:25economic
44:25model
44:26of
44:26human
44:26beings
44:26to
44:27all
44:27areas
44:28of
44:28society
44:28and
44:29the
44:30Prime
44:30Minister's
44:30press
44:30conferences
44:31became
44:32an endless
44:32procession
44:33of
44:33graphs
44:34and
44:34tables
44:34proving
44:35that
44:35the
44:35government
44:36was
44:36meeting
44:36its
44:37performance
44:37targets.
44:39This
44:39was
44:39the
44:40politics
44:40of
44:40negative
44:41liberty
44:41trying
44:42to
44:42give
44:42people
44:43simply
44:43what
44:43they
44:43wanted.
44:45But
44:45Blair
44:46believed
44:46that
44:46politics
44:47could
44:47be
44:47more
44:47than
44:47this.
44:48He
44:49had
44:49read
44:49Isaiah
44:49Berlin's
44:50lecture
44:50on
44:51the
44:51two
44:51concepts
44:51of
44:52liberty.
44:53And
44:53after
44:53he
44:53came
44:54to
44:54power
44:54in
44:541997
44:55Blair
44:56wrote
44:56a
44:56letter
44:56to
44:57Berlin.
44:58In
44:59the
44:59letter
44:59Blair
45:00asks
45:00Berlin
45:00whether
45:01it
45:01is
45:01possible
45:02to
45:02go
45:02beyond
45:03the
45:03narrowness
45:03of
45:03negative
45:04liberty.
45:05The
45:06limitations
45:06of
45:07negative
45:07liberty
45:07Blair
45:08wrote
45:08are
45:08what
45:09have
45:09motivated
45:09generations
45:10of
45:10people
45:11to
45:11work
45:11for
45:12positive
45:12liberty
45:13despite
45:14what
45:14happened
45:14in
45:14the
45:15Soviet
45:15Union.
45:17Surely
45:17he
45:17asks
45:18Berlin
45:18just
45:19because
45:19socialism
45:19has
45:20collapsed
45:20it
45:21doesn't
45:21mean
45:21that
45:22the
45:22left
45:22can't
45:22have
45:23the
45:23confidence
45:23to
45:24fight
45:24against
45:25authority
45:25and
45:26tolerance
45:26and
45:26hierarchy
45:27and build
45:28a more
45:28equal
45:28society.
45:31Isaiah
45:31Berlin
45:31was on
45:32his
45:32deathbed
45:32and never
45:33replied.
45:35But
45:35what Blair
45:35was asking
45:36him
45:36was whether
45:37it was
45:38somehow
45:38possible
45:39to
45:39combine
45:40the
45:40two
45:40ideas
45:40of
45:41freedom.
45:41And
45:42this
45:42is
45:43what
45:43Blair
45:43was
45:43going
45:43to
45:44try
45:44and
45:44do
45:44not
45:45at
45:45home
45:45but
45:46abroad.
45:47It
45:48began
45:48in
45:48Kosovo.
45:53In
45:541998
45:55Blair
45:55helped
45:56persuade
45:56the
45:56Americans
45:56to
45:57join
45:57a
45:57NATO
45:58bombing
45:58campaign
45:58of
45:59Serbia.
46:00The
46:00aim
46:01was
46:01to
46:01force
46:01President
46:02Milosevic
46:02to
46:03stop
46:03the
46:03ethnic
46:03cleansing
46:04by
46:04Serbian
46:04troops.
46:06For
46:07President
46:07Clinton
46:08it
46:08was
46:08a
46:08short
46:09term
46:09humanitarian
46:09mission.
46:11Blair
46:12saw
46:12something
46:12far
46:13deeper.
46:14It
46:14was
46:14the
46:14beginning
46:15of
46:15a
46:15new
46:15universal
46:16principle
46:17that
46:17should
46:17be
46:18applied
46:18across
46:18the
46:19world.
46:20In
46:21the
46:21modern
46:21interconnected
46:22global
46:22society
46:23Blair
46:23believed
46:24that
46:24the
46:24West
46:24now
46:25had
46:25a
46:25duty
46:25to
46:26intervene
46:26in
46:27countries
46:27where
46:27individuals
46:28were
46:28threatened
46:28by
46:29tyranny
46:29and
46:30bring
46:30liberty
46:30to
46:31the
46:31people.
46:33He
46:33outlined
46:33this
46:33dramatic
46:34new
46:34vision
46:34at
46:35a
46:35speech
46:35in
46:35Chicago
46:36in
46:361999.
46:37This
46:40is
46:41I
46:41believe
46:41a
46:42just
46:43war.
46:44Acts
46:44of
46:45genocide
46:45can
46:46never
46:46be
46:46a
46:47purely
46:47internal
46:48matter.
46:49If
46:49we
46:49can
46:50establish
46:50and
46:50spread
46:51the
46:51values
46:51of
46:52liberty,
46:52the
46:53rule
46:53of
46:53law,
46:54human
46:54rights
46:54and
46:55an
46:55open
46:55society,
46:56then
46:57that
46:57is
46:57in
46:58our
46:58national
46:58interest
46:59too.
47:00The
47:00spread
47:01of
47:01our
47:01values
47:02makes
47:02us
47:03indeed
47:03safer.
47:04does
47:05anyone
47:05believe
47:06that
47:06Serbia
47:07or
47:07Iraq
47:08would
47:09be
47:09nations
47:09that
47:11originate
47:11conflict
47:12if
47:13they
47:13were
47:13democracies?
47:19But
47:20it
47:20was
47:20the
47:20events
47:21of
47:21September
47:21the
47:2111th
47:22that
47:22would
47:23transform
47:23Blair's
47:24principle
47:24into
47:25a
47:25revolutionary
47:25attempt
47:26to
47:26remake
47:26the
47:27world
47:27and
47:27bring
47:27freedom
47:28to
47:28millions
47:29of
47:29people.
47:30The
47:30kaleidoscope
47:31has
47:31been
47:31shaken.
47:32The
47:32pieces
47:32are
47:32in
47:33flux.
47:34Soon
47:34they
47:34will
47:34settle
47:34again.
47:36Before
47:36they
47:37do,
47:38let
47:39us
47:39reorder
47:39this
47:39world
47:40around
47:40us.
47:43I
47:44believe
47:44that
47:45this
47:46is
47:46a
47:46fight
47:46for
47:46freedom.
47:49From
47:49the
47:49deserts
47:50of
47:50northern
47:50Africa
47:50to
47:51the
47:51slums
47:51of
47:51Gaza
47:52to
47:52the
47:52mountain
47:52regions
47:53of
47:53Afghanistan,
47:55they
47:55too
47:55are
47:57our
47:57cause.
47:59At
48:00the
48:00same
48:00time,
48:01the
48:01September
48:01the
48:0111th
48:01attacks
48:02had
48:02brought
48:03many
48:03of the
48:03democratic
48:04revolutionaries
48:05from the
48:051980s back
48:06to influence
48:07in Washington.
48:08They and
48:09Blair now
48:09came together
48:10to try and
48:11spread democracy
48:12to the
48:12Middle East.
48:14And just as in
48:14the 80s,
48:15the same
48:16techniques of
48:16exaggeration and
48:17fear were
48:18employed to
48:19persuade the
48:20American people
48:20to back
48:21this.
48:25And Tony
48:26Blair found
48:26himself facing
48:27the same
48:28problem.
48:29Although he
48:30appealed to the
48:31British people
48:31to trust him
48:32in this
48:33radical vision,
48:34he now
48:34governed a
48:35society that
48:36distrusted
48:37politicians.
48:38As this
48:39series has
48:40shown,
48:40the simplified
48:41model of
48:42economic
48:42democracy
48:42was based
48:43on the
48:44theory that
48:44everyone,
48:45including
48:45politicians,
48:47were only
48:47driven by
48:48self-interest.
48:49And that
48:50idea had by
48:51now spread
48:52through the
48:52culture.
48:55Faced with
48:56this distrust,
48:57Blair employed
48:57what many saw
48:58as exaggeration
48:59and distortion.
49:01Perhaps he
49:02believed it was
49:02the only way
49:03to achieve his
49:04moral vision.
49:05The ends
49:06justified the
49:07means.
49:08The read we
49:09get on the
49:10people of
49:10Iraq is
49:11there's no
49:11question about
49:12what they
49:12want to get
49:12rid of Saddam
49:13Hussein,
49:13and they
49:14will welcome
49:15as liberators
49:15the United
49:16States when
49:17we're going
49:17to do that.
49:23In April
49:242003,
49:25American and
49:26coalition forces
49:27ousted
49:27Saddam Hussein.
49:28and set out
49:29to create
49:30a new
49:30free society
49:31in Iraq.
49:32And to do
49:33so,
49:34they were
49:34going to
49:34use the
49:35very same
49:35technique
49:36they had
49:36used in
49:37Russia,
49:37shock
49:38therapy.
49:40USA,
49:40good,
49:40freedom,
49:41USA.
49:42The head
49:46of the
49:46provisional
49:47authority,
49:47Paul Bremer,
49:48arrived in
49:49Iraq with
49:50a plan drawn
49:50up by a
49:51radical group
49:52of economists
49:52that was
49:53even more
49:54extreme and
49:55more utopian
49:56than had been
49:57tried in
49:57Russia.
49:58The people
49:59were to be
50:00liberated from
50:00all forms of
50:01state control
50:02and Bremer
50:03immediately set
50:04about sacking
50:05all members
50:05of the Ba'ath
50:06party who
50:07had run
50:07Iraqi society.
50:09It was a
50:10dramatic
50:10revolutionary move.
50:12Overnight,
50:13the Americans
50:13destroyed the
50:14civic structure
50:15of Iraqi
50:16society.
50:17But instead
50:18of trying to
50:19create new
50:19institutions,
50:20Bremer's plan
50:21then set out
50:22to engineer
50:22the perfect
50:23market economy,
50:24which the
50:25Americans
50:25believed would
50:26then automatically
50:27create a new
50:28democracy.
50:30All industries
50:30and public
50:31services were
50:32to be privatised
50:33immediately.
50:34The country
50:35would then be
50:35thrown open
50:36to international
50:37corporations
50:37who in return
50:39for investing
50:39could take
50:40100% of their
50:41profits out of
50:42the country
50:43untaxed.
50:45Only one of
50:46Saddam Hussein's
50:47laws remained,
50:48the one that
50:49restricted trade
50:50unions.
50:50Out of this
50:53was supposed
50:53to come
50:53spontaneous
50:54order.
50:56What resulted
50:57was chaos.
51:11There's a definite
51:11disconnect between
51:12what needs to
51:13happen and
51:14what's actually
51:14happening.
51:15We need to
51:15get these people
51:15food, water,
51:16housing and
51:16the government
51:17fast.
51:18Here, on the
51:19lowest level of
51:20military hierarchy,
51:22I don't see it
51:22happening.
51:23I see nothing of
51:24this happening
51:24and I'm sure
51:25there are plans
51:25being made,
51:26papers drafted,
51:26whatnot, but
51:28these people don't
51:28see that and I
51:29don't see it and
51:30that's what makes
51:30them angry and
51:31that's what makes
51:31them want to
51:32attack us.
51:32What are you
51:33trying to do?
51:35Trying to change
51:36these people's
51:37way of, I
51:38don't know.
51:41What also
51:41resulted was
51:42corruption on a
51:43huge scale.
51:45More than
51:46$350 billion
51:47has been sent to
51:48Iraq for
51:49Reconstruction.
51:51Audits completed
51:51so far show
51:53that over 10%
51:54of the money
51:54has disappeared
51:55or been
51:56siphoned off
51:57by American
51:57corporations in
51:59corrupt overpricing.
52:01Then the
52:02Americans announced
52:03that the new
52:03Iraqi constitution
52:04would be written
52:05by a governing
52:06council whose
52:07members would
52:08not be elected
52:08but would be
52:10chosen by the
52:10Americans themselves.
52:12The most senior
52:13figure in the
52:14Shiite community,
52:15Ayatollah Sistani,
52:16then issued a
52:18series of
52:18fatwas that
52:19stated that
52:20this was not
52:21real democracy.
52:23Sistani quoted
52:24the principles
52:24behind the
52:25French Revolution,
52:27the idea of a
52:28social contract
52:29between the
52:29people and
52:30their rulers.
52:32What the
52:32Americans are
52:33imposing, he
52:34said, is a
52:34limited, narrow
52:35form of democracy
52:36that ignores this
52:38basic principle.
52:40He called on his
52:41followers to
52:41protest and he
52:43warned that unless
52:44the Americans
52:44allowed real
52:45democracy, the
52:46very opposite
52:47would rise up
52:48to fill its
52:48place, an
52:50anti-democratic
52:51Islamism.
52:53We want to
52:53express about
52:54our opinion.
52:55It's the
52:56democracy in
52:56Britain and
52:57Australia.
53:00We've never
53:00had democracy
53:01before, this
53:02man says.
53:03Don't we
53:03deserve it?
53:06But Sistani
53:06was ignored when
53:08the insurgency
53:08began, led by
53:10many of the
53:10men the
53:11Americans had
53:11sacked.
53:14What was
53:15happening in
53:16Iraq was
53:16the strange
53:17logic of the
53:18attempt to
53:19impose the
53:19idea of
53:20negative
53:20liberty by
53:21revolutionary
53:22means.
53:23Just as in
53:24Russia, this
53:25narrow conception
53:26of freedom was
53:27unable to deal
53:28with the
53:29complexities of
53:30a society
53:30composed not
53:31just of
53:31individuals, but
53:33of powerful
53:33groups driven
53:34by conflicting
53:35ideas of
53:36nationalism and
53:38Islamism.
53:40And in the
53:41face of that
53:41failure, the
53:42Americans began
53:43to turn to
53:44violence and
53:44torture to
53:46try and
53:46enforce their
53:47kind of
53:48freedom.
53:53And at the
53:54same time, the
53:56Islamists turned
53:57to killing and
53:57assassination in
53:59order to enforce
54:00their revolutionary
54:00vision of an
54:01Islamist state.
54:02freedom.
54:03And the
54:12revolutionary
54:13attempt to
54:13create negative
54:14liberty abroad was
54:16also transforming
54:17freedoms in
54:18Britain itself.
54:21Your
54:21democratically elected
54:23governments
54:24continuously perpetuate
54:25atrocities against my
54:27people all over the
54:28world, and your
54:29support of them makes
54:30you directly
54:31responsible.
54:33In July 2005,
54:35Islamist terrorists
54:36who claimed to be
54:37responding to
54:38Britain's policy in
54:39Afghanistan and
54:40Iraq, bombed
54:41London.
54:43Blair's response was
54:44to push forward
54:45dramatic changes to
54:46the law.
54:48He saw it as an
54:48opportunity to
54:50reinforce in a much
54:51wider way the
54:52specific ideas of
54:53negative liberty.
54:56Blair believed that
54:57the criminal justice
54:58system protected the
54:59accused at the
55:00expense of the
55:01innocent law-abiding
55:02individual, and
55:03that should be
55:04changed.
55:06The fundamental
55:07dilemma is this.
55:10How do we
55:11reconcile liberty
55:12with security in
55:15this new world?
55:16When a crime goes
55:17unpunished, that is a
55:19breach of the
55:20victim's liberty and
55:21human rights.
55:22When we can't
55:23deport foreign
55:23nationals, even
55:25when inciting
55:26violence, this
55:27country is at risk.
55:29liberty, let
55:30liberty at last
55:31stand up for the
55:33law-abiding citizen
55:35in this country.
55:37What Blair was
55:38proposing was that
55:39from antisocial
55:40behaviour through to
55:41terrorism, individuals
55:42could be detained or
55:44punished on far less
55:45evidence than before,
55:47or even on the
55:48suspicion that they
55:49might commit a crime
55:49in the future.
55:51There has been
55:52enormous opposition to
55:54this from the legal
55:55profession.
55:55They argue that he
55:57opens the way to the
55:59arbitrary use of power
56:00by governments.
56:02Politicians can now
56:03decide who is a
56:04normal law-abiding
56:05citizen, and who is
56:07the individual whose
56:08ideas might lead to
56:10dangerous crimes in the
56:11future, and should be
56:12locked up with little
56:13or no evidence.
56:14violence.
56:17Yet again, negative
56:19liberty has transformed
56:20itself into what Berlin
56:22had warned against.
56:23It's become a version of
56:25its opposite, positive
56:26liberty.
56:28Our political leaders have
56:29the power to decide what
56:31is the right kind of free
56:32individual, and to punish
56:34those who do not conform to
56:36that ideal.
56:37But there is one thing
56:47that makes our freedom
56:48today different from
56:50positive liberty.
56:52Positive liberty is driven
56:54by a vision that freedom
56:55is for something.
56:57The freedom to do or to
56:59become something new, out of
57:01which a better world will
57:02come.
57:05Negative liberty has no
57:06such vision.
57:07It isn't for anything.
57:10At its heart, it has no
57:12purpose, other than to
57:14keep us free from
57:15unnecessary constraint or
57:16harm.
57:18And in using force to
57:20create a world based on
57:21negative liberty, the
57:23democratic revolutionaries
57:24have actually led millions
57:26of people abroad into a
57:28world without purpose or
57:29meaning.
57:34This idea of freedom is
57:36still portrayed by many
57:37politicians and influential
57:38commentators as a universal
57:40absolute.
57:42They assume it is only a
57:44matter of time before it
57:45spreads throughout the world.
57:47But this may not be true.
57:52As this series has shown,
57:54the idea of freedom that we
57:55live with today is a narrow
57:57and limiting one that was
57:59born out of a specific and
58:00dangerous time, the Cold War.
58:02It may have had meaning and
58:05purpose then as an alternative
58:07to communist tyranny, but now
58:09it's become a dangerous
58:10trap.
58:19Our government relies on a
58:21simplistic economic model of
58:23human beings that allows
58:25inequality to grow and offers
58:27nothing positive in the face of the
58:29reactionary forces they have
58:31helped to awake around the world.
58:41If we ever want to escape from this
58:43limited world view, we will have to
58:45rediscover the progressive,
58:47positive ideas of freedom and
58:50realise that Isaiah Berlin was
58:51wrong.
58:53Not all attempts to change the world
58:55for the better, lead to tyranny.
59:02MUSIC PLAYS
59:04MUSIC CONTINUES
59:11MUSIC CONTINUES
Recommended
4:11
|
Up next
59:26
59:36
59:03
9:59
51:50
4:24
43:04
44:47
55:05
58:04
28:07
23:10
25:12
24:41
Be the first to comment