The Snake Behind the Arab Spring

By Elias Akleh
Media With Concience
14 November 2011


Due to its important geopolitical location (linking Asian, African and European continents) and to its diversified rich natural resources the indigenous inhabitants of the Middle Eastern region had been subjected to multi-forms of colonial campaigns since the beginning of ancient times. These inhabitants were subjected to ruthless military occupations, genocides, persecutions, oppressions, enslavements, and ethnic cleansing. Yet the people never surrendered nor gave up. They struggled for their freedom and independence and fought all colonial powers one after the other. Since the beginning of 2011 we are witnessing their latest regionally-sweeping fight against local ruling regimes that are subservient to foreign powers. This has become known as the Arab Spring. Unfortunately, like all their previous struggles, there is a poisonous snake in the background, which covertly is directing and orchestrating this Arab Spring to reap its fruits for itself.

Their most previous sweeping struggle, similar to the present Arab Spring, was the famous Arab Revolt of June 1916 kicking the colonial Ottoman Empire, known as the “Sick Man”, out of the whole Middle East. The poisonous snake then was the United Kingdom, who pledged to recognize Arab independence throughout the whole Middle East if they join the British in their fight against the Ottoman Empire; an ally to Germany during WWI. This pledge was officiated through what is known as McMahon/Hussein Correspondence (1915 through 1916). Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Arthur McMahon was the British High Commissioner in Egypt from 1915 to 1917 and Hussein bin Ali was the Sharif of Mecca. The British confirmed their pledge, again, through the January 1918 letter by Sir Mark Sykes carried by British Commander David Hogarth to Hussein. British weapons were shipped to Arab fighters through T.E. Lawrence (known as Lawrence of Arabia), who also coordinated the war efforts between the two parties. After the defeat of the Ottoman Empire the British broke their pledge to Sharif Hussein. According to their May 16th 1917 secret Sykes-Picot Agreement they divided the Middle East into French and British colonies, and according to their Balfour Declaration, November 2nd 1917, they promised Palestine to the Zionists. Sharif Hussein was ousted from Mecca to exile by the British supported Abdul-Aziz bin Saud, who established the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The military struggle continued within each separate Arab state until independence was achieved. Before quitting and leaving their Arab colonies, France and Great Britain raised some of their local cronies to become heads of states in order to keep the country dependent on the occupier economically, politically and even culturally. Some of the Arab countries, especially in Northern Africa, still use the occupier’s language next to Arabic as a main daily language.

There exists in the world a very wealthy and very influential group of people; the wealthiest 1%; a Power Elite, who exerts tremendous influence on world events. This Power Elite value themselves above all other nations. They had developed a kind of political theology that exalts them as the elite of all elites, the divinely chosen group, the architects of this world, the crafters of all religious, political and social ideologies, and the destroyers and builders of nations. It gives them the right and the duty to move nations and lead them into reshaping their political regimes through revolutions and wars to make these nations subservient to their own agenda. They spend their days drawing global projects and dedicate all their resources for their execution. They were responsible for all major wars around the world, for revolutions in many countries, for economical crises and for most major events in the history of this world. Through their wealth they control heads of states, all media outlets, military and intelligence organizations, and the world economy. Looking at the present global financial crises affecting many countries, one could not help but ask: who is this debtor, wealthy enough to hold many countries and their whole economies in his debt?

This is not any longer the farfetched conspiracy theory they are trying to ridicule those who try to expose it. It is a fact. After all a conspiracy is defined as “evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more people”.

For those who doubt that nations could be blindly and irrationally driven to acts against their own national interests and welfare, I would like to remind them of the drastic opposing effects of the famous speeches given by Brutus Albinus and Mark Antony to the Roman citizens after the assassination of Julius Caesar. The Romans, won by Brutus’ speech, were immediately converted against him within few minutes by Mark Antony’s speech. The famous proverb states that “people are just like a ball kicked from one corner of the field to the other by politicians.” Thus the political term “the ball is in one politician’s court.”

Iraq, Syria and Iran were the main obstacles to the Power Elite’s primary colonial Zionist Project of establishing Greater Israel to control the Middle Eastern region. The Power Elite came up with the “New Middle East” and “fighting global terrorism” projects to augment their Zionist Project. Intending to move southward they started with the occupation and destruction of Iraq. Although the Iraqi occupation was carried out under the banner of weapons of mass destruction and spreading the American democracy, it was faced with huge global political opposition not to mention the large financial expenses.

After failing to manipulate the IAEA and UN to isolate and to break the Iran/Syria ally, who supports Lebanese Hezbollah and Palestinian Hamas in their resistance against Israeli occupation and expansion, the Power Elite came up with the perfect scheme of “New Order through Chaos” erroneously dubbed, later on, as the Arab Spring. It involves revolution from within to topple the ruling regime and to incite conflict and struggle between the different religious and ethnic groups to divide and to weaken the country in order to make it easier for them to interfere, under the pretence of protecting minorities and/or of economic aid, to virtually control and re-organize the country. This way the Power Elite would present itself as an ally rather than an occupier, would gain the approval of the international community, would sidetrack all global political opposition and criticism, and would avoid the huge expenses incurred by the revolution. Their first attempt during 2009 Iranian election failed to topple the regime due to the relatively small size of demonstrators. A proven precedent with a strong credibility was needed to convince larger masses into revolting. The Power Elite was ready for a “controlled sacrifice” in order to win the ultimate prize, similar to a chess player, who is ready to sacrifice his queen in order to check-mate his opponent’s king. The goal is a controlled election in an American style democracy in some of the “non-friendly” Middle Eastern countries.

Tunisian Zine El Abidine Ben Ali was the first sacrifice. Tunisia was a French colony from 1883 to 1956 when Habib Bourguiba established the Republic of Tunisia. Bourguiba made the fatal mistake of nationalizing foreign land holdings and Christian religious institutions. This infuriated the Italians, who brokered what is known as the “medical coup d’état” deposing Bourguiba and installing the head of security forces, Ben Ali, in his place. This was declared to a 1999 Parliamentary Committee by Fulvio Martini, former head of Italian military secret service (SISMI). Ben Ali was perfect local foreign puppet. He has French and American military and intelligence training. He had close working relationship with Bush’s (Junior) administration and was a partner in fighting the so called global terrorism through the Trans-Saharan Counterterrorism Initiative.

Contrary to the claimed cause for the 2010/11 Tunisian Revolt its economy was considered the best in the African continent and was projected to even improve in the coming years. The 2010-2011 Global Competitive Report (Davos World Economic Forum) ranked Tunisia as first in Africa and 32nd out of 132 globally. In an attempt to fight potential terrorism through economic assistance Ben Ali established a National Solidarity Fund that slashed Tunisia’s poverty from 7.4% in 1990 to 3.8% in 2005. The Oxford Business Group stated that Tunisia’s economy was likely to grow starting with 2008 due to its diversified industries.

Tunisia was chosen for its vulnerability to the West. Its security intelligence was penetrated through its cooperation in NATO’s Operation Active Endeavor, and its military and economy were compromised through the American military and economic assistance programs. Although the Power Elite supports its local puppet rulers they also support, to a lesser extent, opposition groups just in case the ruler gets out of line they would use the opposition groups to get rid of him.

The revolution started with Wikileaks exposing the large extent of Ben Ali’s corruption. When Mohammed Bouazizi lit himself aflame the opposition groups were already primed for mass demonstrations. As the head of state, and through bribery, Ben Ali could have sent the army and thugs to crush the demonstrators, as we have seen in Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, and Syria. The country’s army chief withdrew his support to Ben Ali after his consultation with the Obama’s administration as was rumored. Ben Ali flew out to Saudi Arabia that has become known as the refuge for all deposed dictators of the region.

The many political parties formed before the Tunisian election is an indicative of the prevalent division and confusion among the people. The inexperienced Ennahda Islamist Party, who won the October 23rd election, could become a very easy prey to foreign long experienced political interference and to economical manipulation.

Egypt was the litmus test that would propel the rest of the Arab nations, particularly Syrians, into revolting against their ruling regimes. Hosni Mubarak was chosen for he was the most hated, although very influential, Arab leader of the most important Arab country. He was hated by his people for his tyranny, his oppression, his corruption, and his cheap privatization of Egyptian natural resources to foreign investors among many others. He was hated by the majority of Arab nations for his pro-American/Israeli foreign policies, for supporting the American invasion of Iraq, for his opposition to the democratically elected Palestinian Hamas, for his sabotage to all inter-Palestinian reconciliation efforts, for his partnership with Israeli Gaza siege, for his opposition to Hezbollah’s and Hamas’ armed resistance against Israeli occupation, and for his support to Israel’s 2006 war against Hezbollah and Israel’s 2009 war against Gaza. He was the queen to be sacrificed in the chess game.

“US groups helped nurture Arab Uprisings” was the title of an article in New York Times, which exposed that young Egyptian activists had received technical training on the use of social networking and mobile technology, and were financed by American groups such as International Republican Institute, National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, National Endowment for Democracy and Project on Middle East Democracy.

It is inconceivable that Mubarak, the wealthy ruthless head of state for thirty years and with long history in military service, did not have any loyal subjects in the army, who would help him crush the demonstrators. For the last thirty years the Egyptian army had been virtually armed, trained, and financed by the US. The army did not crush the protesters because there were strict orders not to do so. Comparatively the same army had crushed protesters and even opened live fire at them after the revolution (Maspero Massacre of 9th October, here and here). The Supreme Counsel of the Armed Forces, who seized power after the revolution, had re-instated the emergency laws and is slapping in military courts prison sentences to young activists, who started the revolution. This Counsel stood watching thugs attacking and destroying many government buildings. The latest attack this month was on the Supreme Court while judges were in a meeting. Egypt now is divided with religious conflicts (Christian Copts vs Muslims) and non-functioning government.

The American chosen next president is already primed and ready for the proper time to grab presidency. As for Mubarak, he had served the American/Israeli interest well for the last thirty years and would not be let off empty handed. According to Egyptian weekly “Alanbaa Aldawlia” the Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE) organization, with 14 million members and specializes in the monitoring of money laundering schemes, had reported to the FBI that for 10% commission President Obama and 17 other American officials, including both former presidents Bush (father & son), Hillary Clinton, James Baker and others, with the cooperation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a high manager of Deutche Bank in France, had been involved in the money laundering of Mubarak’s $700 Billion from Deutche Bank, Barclays Bank and HSBC Bank, to Israel’s Bank Leumi and other banks in China and Taiwan. According to Anat Levin, the branch manager of Israeli Bank Haboalim-Swiss branch, she was authorized by the Israeli government to transfer $20 Billion from Mubarak’s account to Saudi King Abdulla Abd El-Aziz’s account and to UAE president Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan’s account. The weekly also reported that Christine Legarde, while still French Minister of Economic Affairs, had submitted a report to the Interpol requesting thorough investigation into the management of Deutche Bank in France.

Libyan revolution was actually a civil war brokered by Western powers (US, UK, and France) and some Arab Gulf countries (Egypt, UAE, and Qatar). After paying reparations for Lockerbie bombing, abandoning his nuclear program, and giving Western energy companies (Royal Dutch Shell and BP) access to Libyan oil fields in 2004, Gaddafi had ended enmity with the West. Although he had a type of grandeur illusions Gaddafi attempted in the past to unite Arab countries, and upon failing he recently attempted to create an African Union which threatened the re-colonization plan of Africa by AFRICOM. The decision to get rid of Gaddafi, once and for all, came when he vowed to expel Western energy companies from the country and replace them with oil firms from China, India and Russia. Gaddafi’s second fatal mistake was his plan to convince African and Muslim counties to create a new currency, the gold dinar, to rival the American Dollar and the European Euro, in oil trade.

Libyan revolution was totally militarized. It was revealed that Egypt and Qatar were the main arms suppliers to the Libyan rebels. Under American pressure Arab League urged UN to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, and Qatar offered to cover all expenses of NATO forces to bomb alleged Gaddafi’s forces. Libyan rebels were civilians without any military training and were no match for Gaddafi’s well-trained and well-equipped army. It was revealed by Walter Fauntroy, member of US House of Representatives, that while in a self-sanctioned peace mission to Libya, he witnessed French and Danish troops coordinating NATO bombings and raiding Libyan villages, and giving the credit to Libyan rebels. At the end Gaddafi was ordered murdered rather than captured for fear of exposing all his shady dealings with the West.

Two unplanned products of the Arab Spring were the Yemeni and Bahraini revolutions. These are genuine popular peaceful revolutions against Yemeni Saleh’s 33 years oppressive rule, and against Al Khalifa family virtual 191 years rule. The two countries have strategic locations in the region and are of important interest to the American Administration. Yemen is located on the southern entrance of the Red Sea, through which all east/west marine traffic passes. Citing the October 2000 USS Cole bombing, the 2008 attacks on US embassy, and the October 2010 bomb packages incidents, allegedly linked to Anwar al-Awlaki, as proof of Al Qaeda in Yemen, Obama’s administration and Saudi Arabia justified sending money, arms and troops to help Saleh fight terrorists, and to crush the 10 months old demonstrations

The US has possibly the largest marine/air force base in Bahrain, where the Fifth Fleet provides support to all war ships of the US Naval Forces Central Command (USNACENT) to patrol the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean. To keep the status quo in Bahrain Obama’s administration encouraged Gulf States to send the Peninsula Shield Force to Bahrain to crush the demonstrators. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE were happy to oblige and send their troops to Bahrain.

Syria is the main target; the prize; the king to be checked-mate. With American money and with the cooperation of some Arab officials, paid operatives incited some Syrian citizens, motivated by ethnic and religious background, to demonstrate in the streets demanding reform and regime change. These demonstrations took place in the easy accessible small towns on the borders of Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey. Yet these demonstrations were dwarfed by millions of other Syrian citizens who demonstrated in major cities in support of the regime. To intensify the conflict these operatives, dressed in Syrian army outfits, started killing some citizens and accusing the Syrian police and army, and at the same time attack police and army personnel to force them into the defensive.

Compared to Tunisian, Egyptian, Yemeni and Bahraini peaceful demonstrations, Syrian demonstrations are totally armed with heavy weapons; machine guns, propelled missiles, anti-tank RPG, mines and heavy explosives, and are directed and orchestrated by military experts from other neighboring Arab countries as exposed by Al-Alam and Syrian TVs.

Heavy weapons and military experts were smuggled in through Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, as reported by the Lebanese Arabic Assafir. Turkey had also played a major role in pressuring Syria and had harbored and encouraged armed Syrian rebels called Free Syrian Army. In successive televised interviews the former Lebanese MP Nasser Kandil had exposed in details including names, dates, and places, the conspiracy of destroying Syria as a country not just a regime change. The Saudi Bandar Ben Sultan (dubbed Bandar Bush by the Bush family) was named as a major conspirator with the Americans against Syria. It was reported that He was arrested in Syria while under cover smuggling money and weapons to Syrian operatives. It was also exposed that the American Ambassador Robert Ford and French Ambassador Eric Chevallier (in Arabic) to Syria had smuggled sophisticated satellite communication and surveillance equipment to the Syrian rebels some of which were seized by Syrian police.

Media outlets had also been manipulated to pressure Syrian government and to inflame the demonstrators. After gaining credibility in reporting Tunisian, Egyptian, and Libyan revolutions Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabia TV channels had almost totally ignored the 99% popular Bahraini peaceful demonstrations and concentrated on Syrian demonstrators, less than 40% of the population, in a biased unconfirmed and more hostile reporting against the Syrian government. Every Thursday one could notice heightened reports about civilian casualties and ruthless attacks of the Syrian army in an attempt to incite more people to join Friday demonstrators. Syrian news would top every news broadcast even though there might be more important news in the region. Al-Jazeera repeated broadcasting phone video clips of the same demonstrations from different angles, and of alleged civilian victims, some of these clips proved to be of old Iraqi troops abusing citizens. The victims were always reported as civilians while there was no mention of Syrian soldiers being killed. Unlike Tunisian, Egyptian, Libyan, and Yemeni army defectors shown on TV declaring support to the people, the media failed to show one Syrian army defector while they keep announcing wide defection. Al-Jazeera had established a special war room planning anti-Syrian propaganda as reported by some Al-Jazeera’s prime reporters and directors such as Ghassan Ben Jeddo and Luna Al-Shibl among many others (Arabnews in Arabic), who submitted their resignation in protest of such unprofessional politically biased reporting.

The US and France, particularly, had pushed for many harsh sanctions against Syria through the UN. Fortunately they could not obtain a military interference under the excuse of protecting Syrian citizens, as was done in Libya, because of the Russian and Chinese veto threat. So the Arab League, a Western tool, was pushed to play pressuring active role in Syria. It seems that many Arab leaders, especially Gulf leaders, who cynically call for democratic regime in Syria, have forgotten that they, themselves, employ family autocratic dictatorships in their own countries. Despite this fact the Syrian government had accepted the Arab League plan. The oppositional Syrian National Council rejected the plan and intensified its violence against the Syrian army inviting harsh retaliation. So the Arab League suspended Syria’s membership and threatened economic and political sanctions. Such are illegal actions contradicting the constitution of the Arab League that had never made a decision benefiting any Arab state, but legalized the many Western military interference in the Middle East such as in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, and Libya. We should mention here that the Arab League had refused to receive a petition from the slaughtered Bahraini people requesting protection. Thousands of people within different Arab states demonstrated against the decision of Arab League in front of Qatar’s and Saudi Arabia’s embassies.

It has become obvious that the Syrian oppositional groups are divided and have different aspirations some of them are conflicting and confusing. This division and confusion are due to the background of each oppositional group. The Western paid groups are armed seeking violent regime change and call for foreign interference the same as in Libya. The genuine oppositional groups reject any foreign interference fearing the same fate of Libya, and seek drastic reform through dialogue.

To obtain peace, real democracy and prosperity in the Arab World, ALL the present Arab leaders and regimes need to be abolished, starting east with the Gulf States all the way west to the Pacific Ocean through the northern Arab states of Africa. This would give a chance for an Arab Union to develop under one real democratic regime with one united economy. Such a strong Arab Union would rebalance global power and put an end to Western re-colonization schemes of the Middle East.

We should remember that permanent changes happen through the evolution of human consciousness not through violent destructive revolutions.

London Riots: just because there is no political agenda on the part of the rioters doesn't mean the answer isn't rooted in politics.

The UK riots: the psychology of looting

The shocking acts of looting may not be political, but they nevertheless say something about the beaten-down lives of the rioters

Zoe Williams
guardian. 9 August 2011


The first day after London started burning, I spoke to Claire Fox, radical leftwinger and resident of Wood Green. On Sunday morning, apparently, people had been not just looting H&M, but trying things on first. By Monday night, Debenhams in Clapham Junction was empty, and in a cheeky touch, the streets were thronging with people carrying Debenhams bags. Four hours before, I had still thought this was just a north London thing. Fox said the riots seemed nihilistic, they didn't seem to be politically motivated, nor did they have any sense of community or social solidarity. This was inarguable. As one brave woman in Hackney put it: "We're not all gathering together for a cause, we're running down Foot Locker."

I think it's just about possible that you could see your actions refashioned into a noble cause if you were stealing the staples: bread, milk. But it can't be done while you're nicking trainers, let alone laptops. In Clapham Junction, the only shop left untouched was Waterstone's, and the looters of Boots had, unaccountably, stolen a load of Imodium. So this kept Twitter alive all night with tweets about how uneducated these people must be and the condition of their digestive systems. While that palled after a bit, it remains the case that these are shopping riots, characterised by their consumer choices: that's the bit we've never seen before. A violent act by the authorities, triggering a howl of protest – that bit is as old as time. But crowds moving from shopping centre to shopping centre? Actively trying to avoid a confrontation with police, trying to get in and out of JD Sports before the "feds" arrive? That bit is new.

By 5pm on Monday, as I was listening to the brave manager of the Lewisham McDonald's describing, incredulously, how he had just seen the windows stoved in, and he didn't think they'd be able to open the next day, I wasn't convinced by nihilism as a reading: how can you cease to believe in law and order, a moral universe, co-operation, the purpose of existence, and yet still believe in sportswear? How can you despise culture but still want the flatscreen TV from the bookies? Alex Hiller, a marketing and consumer expert at Nottingham Business School, points out that there is no conflict between anomie and consumption: "If you look at Baudrillard and other people writing in sociology about consumption, it's a falsification of social life. Adverts promote a fantasy land. Consumerism relies upon people feeling disconnected from the world."

Leaving Baudrillard aside, just because there is no political agenda on the part of the rioters doesn't mean the answer isn't rooted in politics. Theresa May – indeed most politicians, not just Conservatives – are keen to stress that this is "pure criminality", untainted by higher purpose; the phrase is a gesture of reassurance rather than information, because we all know it's illegal to smash shop windows and steal things. "We're not going to be diverted by sophistry," is the tacit message. "As soon as things have calmed down, these criminals are going to prison, where criminals belong."

Those of us who don't have responsibility for public order can be more interrogative about what's going on: an authoritarian reading is that this is a generation with a false sense of entitlement, created by the victim culture fostered, and overall leniency displayed, by the criminal justice system. It's just a glorified mugging, in other words, conducted by people who ask not what they can do for themselves, but what other people should have done for them, and who may have mugged before, on a smaller scale, and found it to be without consequence.

At the other end of the authoritarian-liberal spectrum, you have Camila Batmanghelidjh's idea, movingly expressed in the Independent, that this is a natural human response to the brutality of poverty: "Walk on the estate stairwells with your baby in a buggy manoeuvring past the condoms, the needles, into the lift where the best outcome is that you will survive the urine stench and the worst is that you will be raped . . . It's not one occasional attack on dignity, it's a repeated humiliation, being continuously dispossessed in a society rich with possession. Young, intelligent citizens of the ghetto seek an explanation for why they are at the receiving end of bleak Britain, condemned to a darkness where their humanity is not even valued enough to be helped."

Between these poles is a more pragmatic reading: this is what happens when people don't have anything, when they have their noses constantly rubbed in stuff they can't afford, and they have no reason ever to believe that they will be able to afford it. Hiller takes up this idea: "Consumer society relies on your ability to participate in it. So what we recognise as a consumer now was born out of shorter hours, higher wages and the availability of credit. If you're dealing with a lot of people who don't have the last two, that contract doesn't work. They seem to be targeting the stores selling goods they would normally consume. So perhaps they're rebelling against the system that denies its bounty to them because they can't afford it."

The type of goods being looted seems peculiarly relevant: if they were going for bare necessities, I think one might incline towards sympathy. I could be wrong, but I don't get the impression that we're looking at people who are hungry. If they were going for more outlandish luxury, hitting Tiffany's and Gucci, they might seem more political, and thereby more respectable. Their achilles heel was in going for things they demonstrably want.

Forensic psychologist Kay Nooney deals impatiently with the idea of cuts, specifically tuition fees, as an engine of lawlessness. "These people aren't interested in tuition fees. In constituency, it's most similar to a prison riot: what will happen is that, usually in the segregation unit, nobody will ever know exactly, but a rumour will emanate that someone has been hurt in some way. There will be some form of moral outrage that takes its expression in self-interested revenge. There is no higher purpose, you just have a high volume of people with a history of impulsive behaviour, having a giant adventure."

Of course, the difference is that, in a prison, liberty has already been lost. So something pretty serious must have happened in order for young people on the streets to be behaving as though they have already been incarcerated. As another criminologist, Professor John Pitts, has said: "Many of the people involved are likely to have been from low-income, high-unemployment estates, and many, if not most, do not have much of a legitimate future. There is a social question to be asked about young people with nothing to lose."

There seems to be another aspect to the impunity – that the people rioting aren't taking seriously the idea it could rebound on them. All the most dramatic shots are of young men in balaclavas or with scarves tied round their faces, because it is such a striking, threatening image. But actually, watching snatches of phone footage and even professional news footage, it was much more alarming how many people made no attempt at all to cover their faces. This could go back to the idea that, with the closure of a number of juvenile facilities and the rhetoric about bringing down prison populations, people just don't believe they'll go to prison any more, at least not for something as petty as a pair of trainers. I feel for them; that may be true on a small scale, but when judges feel public confidence seriously to be at issue, they have it in themselves to be very harsh indeed (I'm thinking of Charlie Gilmour). But there is also a tang of surreality around it all, with the rioters calling the police "feds", as though they think they are in The Wire, and sending each other melodramatic texts saying: "So if you see a brother . . . SALUTE! If you see a fed . . . SHOOT!"

Late on Monday night, news went round Twitter that Turkish shopkeepers on Stoke Newington Road in Dalston were fighting off the marauders with baseball bats, and someone tweeted: "Bloody immigrants. Coming over here, defending our boroughs & communities." And it struck me that it hadn't occurred to me to walk on to my high street and see what was going on, let alone defend anything. I was watching events on a live feed, switching between Sky and the BBC, thinking how interesting it was, even though it was audible from my front door and at one point, when I couldn't tell whether the helicopter noise was coming from the telly or from real life, it was because it was both.

The Dalston clashes remind us, also, that it wasn't just JD Sports, even though the reputation of that chain is, for some reason, the most bound up with everything that's happened. Smaller, independent corner shops, the kind without a head office in Welwyn Garden City, that aren't insured up to the teeth, were ransacked as well, for their big-ticket items of booze and fags. When a chain is attacked, the protection of its corporate aspect means that, while we can appreciate the breakdown of law and order, we do not respond emotionally. When a corner shop is destroyed, however, the lawlessness has a victim, and we feel disgusted. That's what drags these events into focus: not the stuff that was stolen, but the people behind the stuff.

The ugly side of Britain in the Mau Mau case

By AABDULLAHI
The Nation
April 9 2011

For me, the gripping court case for the week is not the appearance of six Kenyans before the International Criminal Court. The case that drew my attention is the start of the hearing of the Mau Mau case before Justice McCombe in the High Court in London.

In this case, four Kenyans have brought a representative suit in which they seek damages, compensation and a “statement of regret” from the British Government for the atrocities the British committed against Kenyans between 1952 and 1961.

The case quite unpleasantly for the David Cameron Administration brings to the fore what is now referred to as “imperialism in human rights discourse”.

In a month when the British Government has told the world that it is protecting Libyans against their government, and is at the forefront of The Hague trials for six Kenyans, that same government is refusing to compensate for the gross human rights abuses it wantonly committed against innocent and defenceless Kenyans.

The facts of the Mau Mau case are simple. The case is premised on a pattern of systematic torture, starvation, mass killing and, in some instance, burning alive of Kenyans.

The use of rape and sodomy as a form of torture and punishment was also prevalent and widespread among British soldiers.

The most common form of sexual abuse according to the pleading filed in court were “the insertion of sand into the men’s anus’’ and the insertion of glass bottles filled with hot liquid into women’s birth canals.

In one horrifying incident, 11 men were clubbed to death in the presence of the British Governor to Kenya, Sir Evelyn Baring.

To the credit of the British Government, it doesn’t deny the facts alleged by the Mau Mau claimants.

In fact, pursuant to an order by the court, the government released 300 boxes and 17,000 pages of documents that vividly describe the atrocities.

These documents were secretly shipped from Kenya a few months before independence and were thought to have been lost or destroyed.

In one of the documents, a district commissioner called C.M. “Monkey” Johnson wrote to the Attorney-General asking for amnesty to be extended because “every one of us, from the Governor downwards, may be in danger of removal from the public service”.

One will be asking that since the facts surrounding human rights abuses by the British Government are not in dispute, why is the case being contested? The answer lies in the senseless defence adopted by the British Government. It is not that the same is just laughable.

It is more a testimony to the fact that Britain has no regard for the human blood it so needlessly spilt. It is a validation of “human rights imperialism” that the West plays as its trump card.

In supporting The Hague trials of the six Kenyans and justifying the invasion of Libya, Britain is simply adhering to its deep imperialistic instinct.

It has nothing to do with human rights in the sense the rest of the world knows. In both instances, it is in line with its strategic interests in Kenya and Libya.

Robert Jay QC, the lawyer for the British Government, has applied to strike out the case on two grounds.

First, that legal liability of the British Government was transferred to Kenya in 1963 upon independence. Second, he contends that facts underpinning the case are old and the cause of action has simply “ceased to exist”. That contention is both ugly and untenable.

What is disappointing is the press coverage of this historic trial in Kenya. Both the print and electronic media have given it a wide berth.

Even the civil society, probably because their benefactor is on the dock, have kept quiet.

UK bid to cover up Mau Mau torture exposed

A mau mau veteran.

April 5 2011 at 22:00

The Nation (Kenya)

The British Government’s efforts to cover up one of the darkest episodes in colonial history have been revealed by the discovery of a vast cache of documents relating to the bloody Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya.

The papers, documenting efforts to put down insurgency, were spirited out of Kenya on the eve of independence and have been held in secret British government archives for half a century.

The files were unearthed only this year after four elderly Kenyans sued the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, claiming they were tortured during the rebellion against British rule in Kenya between 1952 and 1960.

The claimants allege that they suffered “unspeakable acts of brutality, including castrations and severe sexual assaults”, under a system of torture carried out against the Mau Mau fighters by the British colonial authorities.

The case, which opens in the High Court in Britain on Thursday, has led to the discovery of 300 boxes of documents. The files were removed from Kenya in 1963, and secretly brought to Britain days before Kenya’s declaration of independence.

British officials deliberately removed evidence that “might embarrass Her Majesty’s Government”.

The missing material was thought to have been destroyed or lost, but after the High Court judge ordered the government to produce all relevant evidence, the documents were found in the Foreign Office archives: about 1,500 files.

The “vast majority” of the files relate to the Mau Mau, including the detention and punishment of suspected fighters, according to material released to the National Archives.

The documents appear to have been removed from Kenya as part of a policy of extracting sensitive or incriminating files from former colonies. Historians believe that similar files relating to Cyprus, Nigeria, Malaya, Palestine and other former dependent territories may also be held in secret.

“These documents were hidden away to protect the guilty,” David Anderson, Professor of African History at the University of Oxford, said on Tuesday.

“And it’s not just Kenya. What other colonial skeletons are rattling in the FCO basement? Are there secret files from Cyprus and Malaya, or from Nigeria and Rhodesia? It’s time to know the truth, however uncomfortable that may be.”

For many years, former Mau Mau detainees and their families who sought the official and legal records were told that these had been lost or destroyed, while historians have never been granted access to them.

The Kenyan claimants want a statement of regret from the government and a welfare fund for the victims. There are at least 1,400 other former Mau Mau detainees alive, and if former colonial subjects from other countries follow suit, the government could face claims for millions of pounds.

Some of those allegedly implicated are living in Britain, raising the further possibility of criminal prosecutions.

At least 12,000 fighters were killed, but atrocities were committed on both sides, and an estimated 70,000 Kenyans were held in prison camps as the British tried to quell the uprising.

The four claimants, who arrived in Britain on Tuesday, are seeking “damages for personal injuries caused by repeated assaults perpetrated by employees and agents of the British Colonial Administration in Kenya when they were detained”.

Mau Mau secret papers to be made public

BBC
May 6, 2011


The files only emerged because of a compensation claim by four Kenyans who say they were abused

A collection of sensitive documents from Britain's colonial past are to be made public through the National Archives for the first time.

The files were sent to the UK from various former territories, mostly at the time they achieved independence.

The documents emerged when four Mau Mau veterans sued the UK, saying they were tortured by Kenyan colonial government in the 1950s.

The British government says it cannot be held responsible.

It wants the claim thrown out by the High Court.

Foreign Secretary William Hague said the Foreign Office only became aware of the significance of the files in January because of research linked to the court case.

'Enormous significance'

He said: "I believe that it is the right thing to do for the information in these files now to be properly examined and recorded and made available to the public.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

[This] will clarify the last days of Empire in ways that will be shocking for some people in Britain”

End Quote Prof David Anderson Oxford University

"It is my intention to release every part of every paper of interest, subject only to legal exemptions."

Mr Hague said the job of making the papers public would be done "rapidly", but that it might take some time to complete because of the size of the archive.

David Anderson, professor of African politics at Oxford University, told the BBC the files were of "enormous significance".

He said: "These are a set of selected documents withheld for their sensitivity. We will learn things the British government of the time didn't want us to know."

"They are likely to change our view of some key places", he said. "It will clarify the last days of Empire in ways that will be shocking for some people in Britain."

Rebellion

The Foreign Office says officials have briefed the governments of those former British territories which might be affected.

The four Kenyans suing the UK say they were assaulted between 1952 and 1961 by British colonial officers in detention camps during the Mau Mau rebellion.

Thousands of people involved in the rebellion, or suspected of supporting it, were sent to the camps for "screening", or interrogation.

Britain says it cannot be held responsible for the actions of a colonial government.

The Kenya Human Rights Commission has said 90,000 Kenyans were executed, tortured or maimed during the crackdown, and 160,000 were detained in appalling conditions.

Sexual torture was main tool of British interrogation in Iraq

PSYOP of the Mau-Mau Uprising

by SGM Herbert A. Friedman (Ret.)

When one thinks of the Mau Mau uprising, the images are of African natives slitting the throats of white settlers and farmers in their sleep, and of Jomo Kenyatta, the famous Burning Spear who later became the first President of Kenya. In the United States the images were all pro-British and avid audiences watched motion pictures on the subject such as the 1955 Simba, where the Mau Mau were depicted as murderous hordes or betrayers who murdered their white masters, friends, and children in their beds. The best selling novel Something of Value, by Robert Ruark, reinforced this official version of black savagery. In 1957 it was made into a motion picture and Prime Minister Winston Churchill narrated the prologue to the movie. In Safari, the guerrillas slaughter Europeans all through the movie while white hunter Victor Mature gallantly tries to fight and kill the savage murderers. The rebellion really was more of a black-on-black wave of violence. The vast number of attacks and murders was by the Mau Mau on the local Kikuyus who quietly accepted the British rule and were considered to be collaborators. The killing of settlers was actually quite rare and seems to have occurred when some band or gang got particularly aggressive and saw anyone as a target of opportunity. The average was three murders a year, about equal to one day in New York City.

Jomo Kenyatta

It appears that the British attempted to smear the Mau Mau as Communists early in their revolt. Their top secret Information Research Department (IRD) looked for a way to tie the Kikuyus in with the Communist according to Paul Lashmar and James Oliver in Britain's Secret Propaganda War 1948-1977, Sutton Publishing, UK, 1998:

Given the economic plight in which Britain found itself at the end of the Second World War, it is no coincidence that the areas of the empire with the greatest economic value were those where Britain’s determination to maintain control was more obvious. Two such areas were Malaya and Kenya… White settlers on their farms in Kenya… declared whenever things went badly wrong that there was a red under the bed… Although IRD searched for a Communist angle on the Mau Mau, the evidence was not promising.

Jomo Kenyatta had visited the Soviet Union in 1932. Because he was an outspoken advocate of black liberation, the white settlers and colonial government assumed that he was a leader of the Mau Mau. This very tenuous thread to the Red threat was used by the British authorities.

The name "Mau Mau" was never used by the Kikuyu themselves, and did not exist in their language. In general, they called themselves the "Land Freedom Army," or the "Freedom Struggle Association." It may have been invented as part of a psychological operations campaign by the British like "Hun" or "Wog" in an attempt to demonize the Kikuyu people, make them less than human, and easier to hate and kill. It worked quite well. The name is still known today and signifies murderers and savages, although it has no meaning in the Kikuyu language. More interesting, the term has gradually entered the language. We find numerous quotes in literature such as "Are you trying to Mau-Mau me?" Apparently it is another term for pulling the wool over one's eyes. Tom Wolfe wrote a book entitled, In Radical Chic and Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers. The term has also been used as a form of intimidation. Joseph Perkins used it in this way, "In past years the civil rights leadership would mau-mau the government or the corporate sector of the white "

In 1963 a theory arose that “Mau Mau” was an anagram of “Uma Uma” (“out out”), a codeword based on a secret-language game the Kikuyu boys played at the time of their circumcision. General China, a former Mau Mau leader did not support this theory and supposed instead that the native word for “Oath” is “Muma,” but because of its pronunciation the Europeans wrote it as "Mau Mau.” The leader of the movement, Dedan Kimathi, was opposed to the use of the term Mau Mau to describe the guerrillas. He preferred them to be called the Kenya Land and Freedom Army (KLFA).

The British used a form of psychological warfare in the way they wrote about and spoke about the insurgents. Caroline Elkins explores this in Imperial Reckoning, Henry Holt and Company, NY, 2005. She says:

Like most wars, Mau Mau was as much about propaganda as it was about reality…Equally powerful as the photographs distributed by the Colonial Office was the language used to describe the Mau Mau…the "white" and "enlightened" forces of British colonialism were in stark contradistinction to the "dark," "evil," "foul," "secretive," and "degraded" Mau Mau. These descriptions spilled over into the Kenyan and British press, where the sensationalist accounts juxtaposed white heroism with African, or Mau Mau terrorism and savagery.

In Winning Hearts and Minds – British Governments, the Media and Colonial Counter-Insurgency, 1944-1960, Susan L. Carruthers points out that the Foreign Office Information Research Department (IRD) tried to spin the Mau Mau as Communist backed but the Colonial Office Information Department would have none of it as there was no evidence of Soviet meddling. IRD was the British black propaganda unit set-up after World War II to counter the Communist threat.

The United States followed the uprising with great interest and Time magazine featured a two-page spread on the Mau Mau with a picture of a dead cat hanging from a tree with a note written in blood that any person who works for whites will be destroyed. The New York Times reported that the Mau Mau movement was a result of the frustrations of a savage people neither mentally nor economically able to adjust itself to the swift pace of civilization.

Other forms of psychological warfare included the British distributing radio sets to villages so that they could listen to pro-government propaganda broadcasts. They also published a number of propaganda newspapers such as The True News that branded the Mau Mau as spies, thugs, ruffians, gangsters, thieves, murderers, barbarians, and bandits.

Of course, the real story of the insurgency is not quite as "black and white." The British had ruled Kenya for many years and although they are generally considered among the more enlightened colonialists, the people of the occupied nation certainly desired and deserved independence. As in almost all such cases, the people and its political movements split into a number of different groups, some wanting a peaceful reconciliation, others believing that blood and terror is the only path to freedom. The Mau Mau was a breakaway wing of the main political party in Kenya, the Kenyan African Union (KAU). You might think of it like the Irgun, the terrorist wing that broke away from the Haganah (The underground Jewish Army) during the Israeli rebellion against British rule in Palestine. The president of the political party, Jomo Kenyatta, was imprisoned by the British in 1953. He had been arrested along with other Kikuyu leaders on 20-21 October 1952 as part of Operation Jock Scott. This had about the same result as jailing Gandhi had in India. In fact, Kenyatta, who campaigned for independence through non-violent means, was the one man who may have been able to stop the violence. He had a habit of appearing in public with a leopard skin and a spear, and this did not help his image in the West. Kenyatta was arrested and sentenced to seven years of hard labor for "managing the Mau Mau," incitement to violence and subversion. Three months before his

KAU is not a fighting union that uses fists and weapons. If any of you here think that force is good, I do not agree with you. Remember the old saying that he who is hit with a club returns, but he who is hit with justice never comes back. I do not want people to accuse us falsely - that we steal and that we are Mau Mau. I pray to you that we join hands for freedom and freedom means abolishing criminality. Beer harms us and those who drink it do us harm and they may be the so-called Mau Mau. Whatever grievances we have, let us air them here in the open. The criminal does not want freedom and land. He wants to line his own pocket. Let us therefore demand our rights justly. The British Government has discussed the land problem in Kenya and we hope to have a Royal Commission to this country to look into the land problem very shortly. When this Royal Commission comes, let us show it that we are a good peaceful people and not thieves and robbers.

The British controlled Kenya as early as 1890.There were over 30,000 British settlers in the country by 1930. By 1945, 3,000 European settlers owned 43,000 square kilometers of the most fertile land, only 6 percent of which they cultivated. This small minority ruled over a million Kikuyu tribe members. The African population of 5.25 million occupied, without ownership rights, less than 135,000 square kilometers of the poorest land. Many British farmers became wealthy through the growing and shipping of a fine African coffee. In order to protect their exclusivity, they banned the growing of coffee by the natives and introduced a hut tax. They also made it extremely difficult for those without land to purchase and hold a plot. This led to many of the Kikuyus leaving the rural areas and flooding the cities. This will always lead to unrest and political activism.

Map of Kenya

One became a Mau-Mau by taking the blood oaths. The power of the Mau Mau oath is hard to realize in our western culture. We have heard of the German Army's oath to Hitler, but that relied on the concept of honor. To the Kikuyu, the oath was not a point of honor; it was magical and had the power to kill. When two Kikuyus had a dispute they were brought before a witch doctor who had them both take an oath that they were telling the truth. It was understood that if you lied while repeating the oath you would die. So, the British realized that once the Mau Mau oath was taken, the terrorist would not willingly leave the group. That was why they had to use the same sort of "black magic" to invent a counter-oath that would free the individual from membership in the group.

There was also a great deal of peer pressure to take the oath. The leaders understood the power of personal relationships and tribal bonding and used it to force men to join the secret society. L. S. B. Leakey says in Mau Mau and the Kikuyu, The John Day Company, NY, 1952:

Mau Mau followers were forbidden to invite non-members to drink beer, or to attend their dances; they were not to help them in building huts or in any other tasks where it was normal for a man to call on his neighbors to give communal aid. Thus, many who had been reluctant to join the Mau Mau in its earlier days, were more easily persuaded to do so as time went on…

Although there is little mention in the literature of the actual oath, it is known that the ceremony began with the new members taking a vow to honor the old religion of their tribal ancestors. Once past that stage, it is impossible to know how much of the oath is real and how much is British propaganda. The colonial secretary, Oliver Lyttelton, wrote in part:

The Mau Mau oath is the most bestial, filthy and nauseating incantation which perverted minds can ever have brewed. I have never felt the forces of evil to be so near and as strong as in Mau Mau. As I wrote memoranda or instruction, I would suddenly see a shadow fall across the page – the horned shadow of the Devil himself.

Major Frank Kitson (later General)

In Gangs and Counter-gangs, Barrie and Rockliff, London, 1960, Major Frank Kitson mentions a Mau Mau raid where body parts of an old African were taken to be used in the oathing ceremony later:

The gang, frenzied by the thought of blood, slashed around with their simis (a Kikuyu sword) and fired their guns. One old man, slower than the rest, was caught and hamstrung. He fell at the feet of his pursuers, covering his face with his arms to protect it from the slicing swords, but a mouse in a mechanical mincing machine would have had a better chance of survival. One terrorist hacked off a foot, and another sliced off his testicles to use later in an Oathing ceremony. A third gouged out his eyes with a staple and put them in his pocket for the same purpose. When they had finished, most of the gang came by to cut and stab the twitching corpse. They then licked the blood off their simis and moved off into the night, having first set fire to all the huts they could see.

Other writers have stated that there were at least seven stages of oath-taking, which might take several days or weeks to complete and which could include the drinking of blood, eating portions of human flesh, cohabiting with animals, and ingesting bits of brains from disinterred corpses. After the seventh stage of the oath-taking had been reached, the members had to repeat the cycle and reinforce their vows by beginning again.

There may be some truth to the use of sex and perversion in the oath. Some experts believe it was a form of psychological warfare used by the leaders to assure that the soldiers could not fall under the control of their village elders and chiefs. Sexual perversion is taboo in all contexts so far as the Kikuyu tribe is concerned. By forcing the members of the Mau Mau to perform such sexual activities, they were filled with guilt and self-loathing and ashamed to return to their village. It tied the fighters to the insurgency forever.

Other sources make the oath sound more conservative. One gives an example of what he thinks the oath probably was:

I swear that I will fight for the African soil that the white man has stolen from us. I swear that I will always try to trick a white man and any imperialist into accompanying me, strangle him, and take his gun and any valuables he may be carrying. I swear that I will offer all available help and further the cause of Mau Mau. I swear that I will kill, if necessary, anybody opposed to this organization.

A second source claims that the oath was as follows:

I speak the truth and vow before God
And before this movement,
The movement of Unity,
The Unity which is put to the test
The Unity that is mocked with the name of 'Mau Mau',
That I shall go forward to fight for the land,
The lands of Kirinyaga that we cultivated,
The lands which were taken by the Europeans.
And if I fail to do this
May this oath kill me...

The members took one oath when they joined and another when they went into the forest and away from their villages and homes. The second oath allegedly was:

I speak the truth and vow before our God:
If I am called to go to fight the enemy
Or to kill the enemy I shall go,
Even if the enemy be my father or mother,
My brother or sister
And if I refuse
May this oath kill me...

After a time everyone was forced to take the oath again. Soon, the oaths began to lose power because of the constant repetition. Even worse for the guerrilla, each time they took the oath they were charged thirty or forty shillings for the privilege of joining a society of which he was already a member. It became clear to many of the disenchanted fighters that this magical oath was just a way for the leadership to raise funds. Worse for the Mau Mau leaders, as the members left the organization and did not suffer a painful and agonizing death, it became clear that the oath had no magical power and was just a myth.

There was also a leadership oath. It is mentioned by Donald Barnett in Mau Mau from Within, Monthly Review Press, N.Y., 1966:

I swear before God and all the people here that…

1. I will never reveal the leader's secrets to a warrior or any other person not a leader.

2. I will never run away or surrender leaving my warriors behind.

3. I will never abandon the leadership of my people but I will go wherever my people world send me and do whatever they ask me to do in my country's name.

4. I will never disdain and leader in the presence of warriors.

5. I will never by any means cause or plan the injury or death of another leader.

A Mau-Mau gang, (note the home-made rifle held by the man on the far right).

It is also interesting to note that when the British captured a Mau Mau, understanding the solemnity of the oath, they forced the prisoner to take a counter oath, often led by government-sanctioned "Her Majesty's Witch Doctors" that would allow the individual to walk away "cleansed" from his earlier blood oath with some justification and religious legality. Another form of cleansing oath was performed by Christian Ministers. The Terrorist would hold a Bible in his hand and swear eternal enmity to the Mau Mau and loyalty to the Kenya Government.

Kenya is only about six hundred miles long and four hundred wide, but just a small area, about one hundred miles by seventy miles was affected by the rebellion. This was the country occupied by the Kikuyu tribe and the European lands nearby. The Kikuyu tribe is the largest in Kenya. Together with the Embu and Meru, it numbered about one and three quarter million people in 1953.

The actual rebellion occurred from October 1952 to December 1959 and is sometimes dated from the murder of the British loyalist Kikuyu chief Warihiu who was speared to death in broad daylight on a main road on the outskirts of Nairobi. He had spoken out against increasing Mau Mau terrorist acts against colonial rule. The uprising could be called a failure because the Kikuyus did not win a military victory against the British. However, just as happened in Rhodesia, the conflict created a rift between the British government and the more militant British settlers in Kenya. This would lead to the United Kingdom granting Kenya independence in 1963. The Mau Mau had few weapons other than firearms captured from raids on police stations. In general, their weapons were traditional; clubs, knives, spears and arrows. Like the Viet Cong in later years, they attempted to make guns from old pipes, door bolts, wood, nails and elastic bands. They could not fight in the open battlefield with the better-armed British so they engaged in guerilla warfare and terrorism. They launched raids on settlers' farms, post offices, police stations, and other Kikuyu perceived as being loyal to the regime. The British retaliated with public hangings, which had been outlawed in Britain for over a century. A mobile gallows was transported around the country dispensing justice to Mau Mau suspects. Dead insurgents, especially commanders, were displayed at cross-roads, at market places and at administrative centers.

David Anderson mentions the killings in Histories of the Hanged, W. W. Norton and Company, N.Y., 2005:

Kenya's hanging judges were kept busy. Between April 1953 and December 1956 the Special Emergency Assize Courts tried a total of 2609 Kikuyu on capital charges relating to Mau Mau offenses in 1211 trials. Around 40% of those accused were acquitted, but 1574 were convicted and sentenced to hang over this period…In total approximately 3000 Kikuyu stood trial between 1952 and 1958 on capital charges relating to the Mau Mau movement…In all, 1090 Kikuyu would go to the gallows…

The actual number of white civilians killed during the uprising was 32, while the number of African civilians killed by Mau Mau was officially put at 1,819. Of the insurgents, it is believed that 11,000 were killed and more than 1,000 were hanged as criminals.

The supreme Mau Mau body was the Central Committee. Attached to the Central Committee was the War Office and Headquarters of the Land Freedom Army. This had authority over all the terrorists in the Colony and its chairman was officially known as the Commander in Chief, Kenya. There were other committees representing every district in the native Reserves under the Central Committee. The main job of the Committees was to collect arms, ammunition, money and recruits.

General Sir George Erskine

During the uprising Kenya was under a state of emergency and the governor requested and obtained British and African troops. In November 1952 the British closed 34 Kikuyu schools. By May, 1953 General Sir George Erskine was appointed commander-in-chief of the colony's armed forces.

According to Anthony Clayton, writing in Counter-Insurgency in Kenya 1952-60, Sunflower University Press, Kansas, 1976:

Erskine had been a personal friend of the Prime Minster for many years and was briefed on his task personally by Churchill before his departure…Erskine has been surprisingly neglected by students of military history and counter-insurgency tactics. As an efficient and highly principled commander, he deserves closer study.

Erskine seems not to have cared for the Kenyan European settlers, some of whom used the emergency to settle old scores, steal African lands, and murder suspected terrorists without trial. Clayton adds:

Erskine viewed the Kenya settlers very poorly. "Kenya is the Mecca of the middle class…a sunny place for shady people…I hate the guts of them all…I dislike them all with few exceptions."

A Home Guard was recognized as a branch of the security forces and allowed to take action against prospective Mau Mau members. This led to abuses as it always does and about 4,686 suspected Mau Mau were killed by the Guard alone. The government encouraged the white settlers to take up arms against the insurgents. The settlers set up their own vigilante groups to protect their farms from the rebels. They often hired other Africans to do their killings for them and shot suspected terrorists with impunity. The Home Guard took whatever they wanted from families who supported the Mau Mau. Others threatened to denounce loyal Kikuyu unless they were given bribes. Theft, intimidation, torture, castration and rape were commonplace.

Waruhiu Itote, aka "General China", in the dock at Nyeri.

The first notable capture of a leader occurred in January 1954 when the British caught Waruhiu Itote, also known as "General China." By March 1954 the British had captured General Katanga and General Tanganyika. On 24 April 1954 the British launched Operation Anvil. The Kenyan capital city of Nairobi was placed under military control, the 100,000 African occupants taken and 70,000 Kikuyu screened and 30,000 suspected of being Mau Mau members or supporters moved to detention camps and "protected villages." Among those arrested were 5000 British-paid native troops and 1000 Kikuyu Policemen. It is interesting to note that the Italians tried this in Libya and the Americans in Vietnam. This attempt to cut off the rebels from their supply and economic base seldom works, though the British did have some luck with it in Malaya in 1950.

Apparently the British dropped leaflets on Nairobi at the time. According to one published report the sky over Nairobi was filled with British aircraft on 24 April 1954, dropping leaflets that warned residents to stay indoors. 19-year-old Waititu Mwangi picked up one of the leaflets. It said that all members of the Kikuyu, Embu and Meru tribes should immediately leave their houses with their hands up and surrender to soldiers on the streets.

By the end of 1954, one-third of all Kikuyu men were said to be in prison. These detainees had not been convicted of any crime and were held without trial. By October 1955 over 70,000 Kikuyu tribesmen suspected of Mau Mau membership have been imprisoned, and over 13,000 people had been killed in all by both British troops and Mau Mau soldiers since the start of the rebellion. In October 1956, the British captured Field Marshal Dedan Kimathi after a three year manhunt. That effectively signified the doom of the uprising. Believed to be responsible for at least 29 killings, Kimathi was officially charged with the unlawful possession of a revolver and six rounds of ammunition and hanged on 19 February 1957.

The British used some interesting intelligence and psychological warfare tactics to fight the insurgents. Pentagon counterinsurgency advisor John

When conventional military operations and bombing failed to defeat the Mau Mau insurgency in Kenya in the 1950s, the British formed teams of friendly Kikuyu tribesmen who went about pretending to be terrorists. These "pseudo gangs," as they were called, swiftly threw the Mau Mau on the defensive, either by befriending and then ambushing bands of fighters or by guiding bombers to the terrorists' camps.

What is not mentioned, either accidentally or on purpose is that these gangs were often made up of former terrorists who had defected or surrendered to the British and been "rehabilitated." Like the Hoi Chanhs and Kit Carson Scouts in Vietnam, these ex-terrorists with their dreadlocks knew all the tricks and could easily pass for Mau Mau members, allowing them to gather much useful information and set up ambushes.

Major Frank Kitson thought up the idea of using defector Mau Mau to infiltrate the gangs in the forest. He tells of a former terrorist named James who joined the government patrols.

Most of the time James had just shown the Field Intelligence Assistants (F.I.A.) places where they could ambush the gangs or pick up supporters. On one or two occasions, however, he had been released and had gone back to groups of terrorists who did not know that he was a prisoner. He had then been able to give the F.I.A. concerned accurate information as to exactly where they were. Once he took command of a small group of Mau Mau which he found, and led it into an ambush!

The Two "Pseudo gang" members at the left are ex-Mau Mau, the man at the far right is a white British soldier disguised as an African.

Michael Dewar tells us more about Kitson in The Art of Deception in Warfare, David and Charles, UK, 1989:

Kitson had stumbled on the idea while interrogating a captured terrorist who showed a remarkable willingness to turn informer on his erstwhile comrades. Frank Kitson had arrived in Kenya in August 1953. In March the following year he heard that a British Intelligence Officer called Hales had had an extraordinary experience. He had been in the bush with several of his African helpers when the group suddenly found themselves surrounded by several hundred Mau Mau insurgents. Hales, realizing that he was bound to be recognized, walked a short distance away and crouched down behind some scrub. The Africans with Hale pretended to be Mau Mau supporters and they all - to their amazement – got away with it. Kitson was quick to recognize the significance of this event. Because they did not expect to see a white man, they did not notice Hales. Kitson decided to cash in on the insurgents' gullibility by training Africans, particularly ex-Mau Mau, to impersonate gangsters as a regular means of getting information.

Kitson and the Pseudo gangs are mentioned again in the 2005 Lawrence E. Cline monograph Pseudo Operations and Counterinsurgency: Lessons from Other Countries:

Most of the officers and noncommissioned officers had little or no formal intelligence training or background. Frank Kitson, who was key in developing the concept of pseudo-guerrillas in Kenya, noted the attitude of his superiors when he was appointed as a District Military Intelligence Officer: "If we could not be of any use, could we please not be a nuisance?"

Kitson's original concept was simply to develop camps in which the British "could keep a handful of Africans who could help with his interrogations and who could move around the countryside planting . . . and visiting informers." In rather short order, however, he discovered that captured Mau Mau were willing to work actively against their former comrades. Former Mau Mau were used to train British African troops and deployed with these troops in the field against the insurgents.

Cline also mentions that the unit members could be used for intelligence and identification purposes. He says:

When they were all safely hidden behind their masks, they would be assembled and sat down in a row of chairs, with one of our men standing behind each one. No hooded man was allowed to talk to another. When all was ready, the suspects would walk past the hooded men. If they recognized anyone they would give brief particulars to the Field Intelligence Agents (FIA) standing behind their chair. If a suspect was recognized by three or four of the hooded men and if the particulars given to the FIAs corresponded, then it was a safe assumption that they had picked the right man. In this way, we collected a lot of information about people, and we also caught many senior Mau Mau supporters. Quite often we would even get active gangsters in the net.

Cline concludes:

Money Counts. In most cases of successful use of pseudo operations, money in one form or another has been a key component of the campaign. Cash rewards both for civilians to turn in insurgents and for insurgents to surrender have provided the basis for the respective governments to seize the guerrillas. This, of course, is the first step in being able to "turn" them. Rewards for turning in guerrillas, usually "dead or alive" were used in Malaya, the Philippines, Kenya, and Rhodesia. In a number of cases, reward money was sufficiently ample that guerrilla leaders would turn in their own troops. In some cases, both cash rewards and relocation were offered to surrendered guerrillas.

Although they were gradually winning the war against the insurgents, the reputation of the British suffered around the world. On 3 March 1959, 85 prisoners were marched out to a worksite. When the prisoners refused to work, prisoner John Maina Kahihu described what happened:

We refused to do this work. We were fighting for our freedom. We were not slaves.

There were two hundred guards. One hundred seventy stood around us with machine guns. Thirty guards were inside the trench with us. The white man in charge blew his whistle and the guards started beating us. They beat us from 0800 to 1130. They were beating us like dogs. I was covered by other bodies. Just my arms and legs were exposed. I was very lucky to survive. But the others were still being beaten. There was no escape for them.

The British beat 11 men to death and another 60 were seriously injured. The prison officials attempted a cover-up by claiming that the men had died from drinking contaminated water, but the story found its way back to London. There was a political uproar. Now it was the British and not the terrorists that were exposed as brutal thugs. Within weeks, London closed the Kenyan camps and released the detainees.

As so often happens, at the end of the rebellion the hardcore terrorists gained little benefit from independence. Like the Viet Cong after the independence of Vietnam, the new government had little use for terrorists and murderers, even if they believed themselves to be freedom-fighters and patriots. In the newly independent Kenya, they were excluded from high positions and political appointments. These positions were given to the English-educated, well-bred, and wealthy Africans. Kenya simply replaced the white elite with a black one.

On 10 November 1959 the state of emergency was ended in Kenya. Jomo Kenyatta, now aged 71, was released from house arrest in July 1961. He was elected Prime Minster in May 1963. Kenya became an independent African state on 12 December 1963. Four days later a general amnesty was announced for all Mau Mau activists. On 12 December 1964 Kenya was declared a republic and Jomo Kenyatta was its first president.

In 1999, veterans of the Mau Mau rebellion demanded billions of Kenyan shillings in compensation from the British government for war crimes committed against them. They asked that the British government admit responsibility for the loss of life, property and the pain inflicted upon hundreds of thousands of Kenyans during the war.

PSYOP LEAFLETS

In the September 1959 issue of the PsyWar Society's Falling Leaf Peter H. Robbs first mentioned the British propaganda leaflets. He said:

During the course of the Mau Mau disturbances various leaflets were disseminated; the most important being yellow "safe conduct passes" in January of 1955 incorporating the very controversial pardon for past crimes. While certain successes were obtained, about 300 surrenders up to April 1955, the press reported that the Mau Mau chiefs were having a purge of waverers by killing all their supporters who were found with these leaflets in their possession, so that in some cases they became death warrants instead of life insurance. Scores of gangsters were found in the forests of Kenya shot or slashed to death. In a deliberate attempt to avoid this; the later leaflets stated that a green branch was to be the sign of surrender, not the actual leaflet.

In 2006 a pair of British propaganda leaflets aimed at the Mau Mau surfaced. The leaflets were originally in the collection of the British propaganda specialist Francis J. Field, author of the book Aerial Propaganda leaflets.

This leaflet is all text and signed by General Sir George Erskine, Commander-in-Chief, and by Sir Evelyn Baring, Governor, on January 18, 1955. The leaflet was printed by The Government Printer in Nairobi for The Department of Information of Kenya. The 193 x 230mm leaflet promises fair treatment for terrorists who surrender. Some of the text in English, Gikuyu and Swahili is:

The Commander in Chief's and Governor's signatures at the bottom certifies that anyone who surrenders will not be punished.

An Oath not to punish whoever surrenders

THE BEARER OF THIS PASS WISHES TO SURRENDER. He is to be given fair treatment, food, and medical attention if needed. He will be detained but he is NOT to be prosecuted for any offenses connected with the Emergency which he may have committed prior to 18 January 1955.

There is a long message on the back. Some of the text is:

To all the Mau Mau leaders and their followers

NEW DIRECTIVES CONCERNING THOSE WHO INTEND TO SURRENDER

This is the time to save your soul!

As you know, the government has put great effort in the fight against the Mau Mau and it will continue to pursue and kill those who refuse to surrender.

THIS IS THE TIME TO SAVE YOUR SOUL.

The government has continued to issue directives like this to the leaders and followers of the Mau Mau.

If you surrender today and give up all your weapons you will indeed save your soul.

YOU WILL NOT BE PROSECUTED BECAUSE OF THE MISDEEDS OF THE MAU MAU, NOT EVEN ONCE, IF YOU AGREE TO HONOR THIS OATH. THIS APPLIES AS OF 18 JANUARY 1955. THIS IS A PROMISE TO YOU THAT YOU CAN NOT BE KILLED OR HANGED DUE TO YOUR PREVIOUS INVOLVEMENT WITH THE MAU MAU AFTER YOU AGREE TO SURRENDER, ON THE CONDITION THAT YOU NOT REJOIN THE MAU MAU AFTER 18 JANUARY 1955.

This may or may not be the leaflet mentioned by Donald Barnett as related by Karari Njama, a Guerrilla leader:

On 18 January we went to visit Gicuki Wacira who lived on the same slop about one mile into the forest fringe. On our way we heard an airplane sky-shouting [loudspeaker] an appeal for us to surrender. As it passed us following the forest border, we saw it dropping thousands of leaflets. I sent one of my escorts to get me a leaflet. It read –

Government promise

The Kenya Government has offered all the fighters a chance to come out of the forest and return to the normal peaceful life. His Excellency the Governor of Kenya Sir Evelyn Baring has given a general amnesty up to today, 18 January 1955. Save your life now! Surrender with all your fighting weapons and you will not be prosecuted. You will be detained and received good medical treatment, food, clothing and general care.

(Signed by) Sir Evelyn Baring
His Excellency the Governor of Kenya
General Sir George Erskine
Commander-in-Chief, East Africa

The campaign is also mentioned in Mau Mau Memoirs, Marshall S. Clough, Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder and London:

In January 1955, the government declared a two-week ceasefire and sent planes over the forest to sky-shout and drop leaflets offering an amnesty if the Mau Mau surrendered.

The second leaflet is a British safe conduct pass leaflet directed to the participants of the Mau Mau Rebellion. The leaflet was printed by The Government Printer in Nairobi for The Department of Information of Kenya. The leaflet was dropped over the Aberdare Forest area, and it is a surrender offer which was to expire on 10 July 1955. The leaflet measures 172 x 219mm and is in red text. The text contains twelve numbered statements in regard to the uprising and the treatment of those who return to the government. The text is:

12 FACTS THAT ARE TRUE

(1) It is known that most of you are willing to surrender, but the agreement to surrender dating 18 January will expire 10 July 1955.

(2) You have only 7 days left to act upon the agreement that will save your souls and your land.

(3) You will be hunted and killed wherever you are if you do not surrender yourselves.

(4) The government is acting in good faith. Those people who surrender themselves before 10 July 1955 will be awarded in addition to securing their land and their property.

(5) If you do not surrender your people will starve and your children will face unending suffering.

(6) 877 smart people surrendered since 18 January1955.

(7) 1281 Mau Mau insurgents have already been killed, and 625 have been arrested. In addition hundreds of thousands more in the reserves and homesteads have concluded that after 16 January there will be no hope to survive for those who do not surrender.

(8) Your leaders have lied and mislead you. They are the reason why the previous oaths for surrender failed.

(9) Be warned that your leaders who disagree among themselves may sacrifice you in their bid to save themselves.

(10) Those sympathizers that were assisting you in the reserves and the homesteads have lost hope and given up, and have decided to save themselves.

(11) You have no future in remaining in the forest, only suffering and death and your descendants will forget you.

(12) When you are been mislead by those that assist you, lied to by your leaders, cursed by your tribal family, and lied to god, the only possible choice is,

SURRENDER AND YOU WILL BE SAVED

The back of the leaflet bears an old Kikuyu proverb. The meaning of the proverb is that those who wait will never get where they were going, but will race in vain to get where they want to go and end up disappointed and covered with dew. The final line is "Give yourself up now."

Note: Even before the uprising several hundred Kikuyu were living in the forest which covered the slopes of Mount Kenya and the Aberdares. Many of them were wanted fugitives and bandits. After the start of the emergency, more natives joined them as they left home fearful of arrest by the British or because they were ordered there by the rebel leaders. This large group of criminals, patriots and displaced persons gradually formed into several groups; the Militant Wing and the Passive Wing. The Militant Wing lived mostly in the forest and consisted of gang members. The Passive Wing comprised those people who provided money, supplies, shelter, recruits and intelligence for the gangs. The Aberdare gangs whose members came from the District of Nyeri were known as the Ituma Demi Armies,

On 18 January 1955 the Governor-general of Kenya, Sir Evelyn Baring, offered an amnesty to Mau Mau terrorists. The European settlers were up in arms at the leniency of the offer. The offer was withdrawn on 10 June 1955.

General China Captured

A third leaflet from the collection of British PsyWar specialist Dr. Rod Oakland depicts a wounded General China being bandaged.

General China (Waruhiu Itote) was the first of the senior Mau Mau guerrilla leaders captured by the government. He was the second in command of their military wing. His legend says that he had been stationed in India as a member of the British Army during WWII and learned how the Haitians had risen in a slave insurrection. A second anecdote has him being lectured on African freedom while helping to put down a revolt in Uganda. In late 1950 he took the Mau Mau oath. He was first assigned 40 men and trained them in the tactics he had learned fighting the Japanese in Burma. Later he led a large guerrilla force of about 4000 soldiers on Mt. Kenya.

Self-styled 'General' China, terrorist leader, being taken to hospital after
being wounded and captured by Security Forces

The General was wounded in a battle with government troops on 15 January 1954 while on a raid to obtain weapons. After a brief hospitalization, he was declared fit for interrogation. China was interrogated for a total of 68 hours by Ian Henderson at the office of the Special Branch of the Kenya Police. He eventually agreed to help arrange for peace talks between the government and the insurgents. There was a three-month lull in fighting during which time the Special Branch gathered extensive intelligence about the passive wing that supplied food, money, volunteers and ammunition to the fighters. When the "China Peace Overture" failed, the British swept in and arrested more than a thousand Mau Mau suspects in three days. General China was tried and sentenced to death at one point, later given solitary confinement and hard labor, and was finally released from jail by the new Kenyan leader Jomo Kenyatta on 14 June 1962.

The General China leaflet is mentioned in Mau Mau from Within:

Government airplanes spread in the air thousands of leaflets containing General China's photo, and the airplanes appealed to our fighters through their loudspeakers to surrender, taking green branches with us. The surrender appeal said…"Today your food is being brought; it is the gift of bombs. Surrender today, carrying a green branch. Take the road leading to ----- with your arms and you will be welcomed by the Devons [Devonshire Regiment]."

A warrior returned with one of the leaflets containing General China's photo. It said that an important leader had been captured and that there was no use in our gang going on fighting. We discussed the leaflet, agreeing that it was another government propaganda trick.

The Leaders of the Mau Mau are being Killed

A member of the Royal Kent Regiment picked up this leaflet in the Aberdares in 1954. The infantry unit considered the tour a great success and claimed 290 Mau-Mau killed, 194 captured and 114 firearms seized. The Aberdare Range is a 99.4-mile long mountain range north of Kenya’s capital of Nairobi with an average elevation is 11,000 feet.

Notice that his translator wrote the English-language text directly on the leaflet. The leaflet mentions three Mau Mau leaders who were killed in action and one that has been captured. It states that generals Simba, Kamwamba and Mateniagwo were shot and killed during 1953 and General China was shot and captured on 15 January 1954. It depicts the dead General Mateniagwo and the injured General China.

An additional leaflet seems to be mentioned in Mau Mau Memoirs:

Another leaflet operation occurred in 1956 when the Government crisscrossed the forest skies, sky-shouting for the guerrillas to surrender and dropping leaflets threatening to confiscate their land and property.

On the 27 June 2009 BBC Radio Four show, "Saturday Live," Tim Symonds talked about his early life in Kenya.

At just 17-years of age Tim Symonds went to Kenya in an attempt to get away from school and broaden his horizons. He was hired to work on a farm in Kenya and was amazed to find that there was a Mau Mau rebellion taking place. He spent one year working on the farm and said that he would often look for vultures during breakfast because the Mau Mau would come out of the forest during the night hours and kill sheep or cattle for food. They would always disappear back into the forest before dawn when they were vulnerable to military aircraft or vehicles.

In regard to leaflet operations he said in personal conversation:

The thing I most remember was watching leaflets being dropped and the farmer I worked for saying that most of the Mau Mau couldn't read and would have to have the leaflet read to them by the often literate leadership, who may have told them quite the opposite of what the leaflets offered. I myself saw Mau Mau straggling out of the forest carrying the requisite branch to show they wanted to surrender. This entitled them to a de-oathing ceremony followed by a grant of some land and hut-building materials.

After one year as a farmer, Tim joined the Kenya Police Reserve, (KPR), and became a tracker team leader. His job was to keep the Mau Mau moving. He said; "If you move you starve," so he attempted to keep the insurgents on the run where they would be unable to gather foodstuffs to survive. Several of the Mau Mau leaders had £5000 rewards on their heads and Tim said that he would often spend 12 straight hours in the field trying to capture those very valuable prisoners.

At one point it became clear that the various gangs in the forest were so isolated that they did not recognize each other. Tim was called into headquarters and told that he was to become a member of a "Pseudo Gang" and would patrol with two former Mau Mau members who had returned to the government side. He was selected because he had brown eyes. However, because he also had white in his eyes (the sclera), he would place a tiny drop of black shoe polish in the corners of his eyes each day to darken the white area. This would work for several hours and then the polish would be replaced, causing great pain from the alcohol in the solution. He was given a filthy pair of old torn clothes that might have been from a British WWI uniform. He made the mistake of washing them in the detergent Tide and both his former insurgents told him from 30 yards away that he would get them all killed since they could smell the soap on the clothes. He was forced to return to the supply depot and find another set of foul and nasty clothes.

During one mission in the bamboo forest he captured a 50 or 60-year-old insurgent named Obama who spoke perfect English. That is clearly not a Kikuyu name and Tim has written to the American Embassy trying to discover if this was the grandfather of U.S. President Obama.

PSYOP PUBLICATIONS

The Mau Mau in Kenya

In all the many British wars against insurgencies they produced booklets and publications depicting the atrocities of the enemy in an attempt to convince both citizens and neutral countries of the bestial nature of the terrorists and the need to take strong action to preserve the peace. An example is the propaganda booklet The Mau Mau in Kenya. This booklet is described by Susan L. Carruthers in Winning Hearts and Minds: British Governments, the Media and Colonial Counterinsurgency, 1944-1960.

…without actually reproducing images of Mau Mau atrocities, several contemporaneous writers on Mau Mau asked their readers to believe that such photographs would remove any miscon­ceptions that it was a nationalist movement. Stoneham, for example, wrote that their "hideous corpses cry out, not for 'conciliatory meas­ures', but for vengeance on their slayers." His proposition that such images "could never be produced for general publication . . . though it would be salutary to send copies of these nauseating pictures to those who suggest a compromise with this infamous gang of savages" was, unknowingly, close to official policy. However, there were occasions on which the British and Kenya governments did make atrocity photographs more widely available. For example, in 1954 an anonymous pamphlet entitled The Mau Mau in Kenya was published, which was almost entirely devoted to horrific images of Mau Mau terrorism, and was clearly a government production, given its preface by Granville Roberts.

This ends our brief look at the Psychological Operations during the Mau Mau insurrection. I have tried to be fair and impartial in this report but it is understood that readers who were personally involved in the struggle will feel strongly one way or the other. I encourage readers with comments to write to me at Sgmbert@hotmail.com. I would especially like to see more of the leaflets dropped on Kenya. I am sure that many exist among the souvenirs of old soldiers.

04 January 2006