…Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and on 'being there' on another day when disaster struck Manhattan from the skies
One of my favourite radio programmes – sadly absent from the BBC's schedules for a while now – is called "What If…?". As you might imagine, the premise of the programme is to imagine how different events, the world, a nation or parts thereof, might have been if different decisions have been made, if there had been different outcomes from various sequences of events. They gather together a panel of experts – historians, participants, journalists, etc. It's a game that in my modest research I play myself – in my case it's on a small part of the history of media in the UK; not perhaps matters on which the fate of nations rest but still, it is fascinating to see how close we came to things working out very differently and to establish the sequence of events, the pressures, the power bases, indeed the politics, as well as pure chance and personalities that determined events.
On the wider scale, you could debate on different things might have been had Hitler proceeded with his atomic weapons research, rather than dismiss it largely because most of its leading proponents were Jewish. Or if Joe Kennedy Jr. had not been killed during the war and if he, not his younger brother Jack, had become president, or if in 1960 Joe Kennedy senior had not fixed the presidential election the help of his Mafia friends and Richard Nixon had squeaked home. How would Tricky Dickie have reacted to the Soviets installing nuclear rockets on Cuba? Or would Khrushchev not have done so, because Nixon was regarded as a strong Cold War warrior, whereas, after the Bay of Pigs disaster, he thought Kennedy was weak and could be intimidated?
What if Robert Kennedy had not been assassinated and had gone on to become President and had ended the war in Vietnam about five years earlier, let alone taken a very different approach to world affairs than did Nixon? In the UK, what if Labour had, as all the opinion polls had predicted, won the 1970 general election. This would not only have affected the media policy that I'm concerned with my research – and indeed, as many Labour people argued, it was the intervention of Radio Caroline in that election which did at least help turn the tide in the Tories' favour anyway - but most importantly it would have meant that Margaret Thatcher would not have gained a Cabinet seat at that time and therefore would not have been in a credible position to challenge Ted Heath for the leadership of the Conservative party. Or what if Labour – again, as expected – had narrowly won the 1992 election and, presuming the ERM debacle would still happened the following September, that Labour would have been blamed the economic incompetence, probably been out of office for another generation and Tony Blair never become prime minister? And so on and so on.
Most pertinently of all, what if those hanging chads in the voting booths in Florida had behaved themselves and that the brother of the Republican candidate was not in charge of ruling their validity? Would a President Gore have taken the same actions? According to Gore – who I heard speak at the Edinburgh International Television Festival a few years ago – emphatically 'no'. They would certainly have been no invasion of Iraq: the one action above all else which has destroyed America's and Britain's international reputation and, aside from the tens of thousands – quite possibly hundreds of thousands – of innocent lives lost, and bodies broken and minds traumatised, has, following the law of unintended consequences, succeeded in uniting the Shia tribes in both Iran and Iraq and so posing a potentially deadly threat to the West.
No doubt be many who regard this is the sort of academic masturbation; enjoyable if you like that sort of thing, but ultimately pointless and futile. And true, if the genocidal Saddam had continued in power it is quite possible that many thousands would have been killed by him and his psychotic sons and henchmen. But they might not have been the same people who were killed directly or indirectly as a result of the invasion – rather a crucial point if you or a member of your family are one of those who would not otherwise be dead.
In life we don't have a control group, so we can never be sure how things would have worked out. But still, on this tenth anniversary of the 9/11 atrocities, it might not be wasted time to imagine how different – and how much better – the world might have been if a different attitude and course of action had been taken by the United States. If, instead of behaving like a drunk on steroids in a bar, lashing out at anyone he thought might have humiliated him, and approached what was an undoubted, continued threat to its citizens, and a quite understandable desire for justice or even vengeance on behalf of those killed in such a callous and horrific way, calmly, rationally and with dignity. It's easy to forget now just how much support there was the USA in the days after the attacks – even Yasser Arafat gave blood for American citizens. For once, indeed for the first time since the attacks on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, America was the victim of unprovoked aggression. At that point it had tremendous moral capital and goodwill on its side.
Let's imagine President Bush' s televised address to the nation a couple of days after the attacks went something like this:
My fellow Americans.
On September 11 this country was subjected to a horrific, callous attack on its soil and on innocent citizens. The people who died were every major faith and of none, and from every continent of the world. Some of them had been in this country for generations, others had been in a matter of months. Aside from their humanity, the thing that united them was their common goal was to live in a country where they can practice their own faiths, speak their minds, have free association and live their lives anyway they wished, so long as it did not impinge on the rights and liberties of their fellow citizens. The mass murderers who carried out these attacks hate everything that this country stands for. They hate the fact that those of different creeds and ethnicities and work and play happily alongside each other, with mutual respect. They hate the fact that no matter what your gender, your class, racial background, you have equal opportunities for education, for employment and can associate with whom you wish. Theirs is a creed rooted in hatred, division and the denial of rights and liberties to those who challenge their authority and their dogma. They must not, and they will not, prevail.
To be an American citizen is the greatest desire for millions on this earth. Indeed, one of our greatest issues - the numbers of people who wish to come and live here – is a problem of our success. We are living testament to the ideas of freedom, liberty and the common rights of man. It's not a coincidence that the country which has these democratic rights and liberties at its heart has the biggest economy in the world. True, we have been blessed with great natural resources, but so have many other countries, who have failed fail to produce the fruits that can come from those resources, because they have failed to establish the well of freedom. It must choke our enemies that the very things they despise are those that clearly bring the most abundant material success and the greatest human happiness. Their only response is a cult of death and destruction.
As most of us learn in the school playground, bullies are cowards and full of self-loathing. What most of us also learn is that, although they might trouble and intimidate some for a while, if we stand together against them, they slink off to lick their wounds. Occasionally, they return: reformed and better people.
It would be easy – and no doubt popular – if I were to order an immediate attack on those suspected of masterminding these attacks. We have the biggest economy in the world and the biggest defence. We have enormous resources to deploy, we are the world's only superpower. We could do that - but we won't.
A former, great President, Theodore Roosevelt, thought the best policy was to 'speak softly, but carry a big stick'. And we have a very big stick indeed. Another great President, Ronald Reagan, realised that the Soviet Empire could be defeated - not by waging war, but by outwitting and out-smarting the regimes that imprisoned their own peoples. His legacy – the collapse of the Berlin wall and the substitution of a terrible, authoritarian system with democracies and freedoms, came to fruition under my father. Many said this would be impossible – but Ronald Reagan, with the resolve and commitment of our allies, achieved this historic victory over tyranny. We can do so again.
Do not misunderstand me. We will seek out those who organised his terrible acts ruthlessly and without mercy. We shall, if they surrender, bring them to justice, but if they refuse we shall, without compunction, destroy them and their operations. But we shall not, even with the justifiable wish for revenge, make a terrible situation worse by endangering the lives either of our own young people, or of other innocents in other nations.
We are a compassionate country with decent, generous people, and we will not allow our values and our moral leadership to be compromised and to destroy our own liberties. That is what our enemies wish. They wish us to turn in on ourselves and against our cherished decencies and values. They wish to provoke some sort of religious war, for only by destroying the very things that make this country great can they win. But although this was in attack in America, it was not just an attack on America. That is why we shall unite with the rest of the world in defeating the enemy of every decent, human instinct and desire. I have been greatly moved by the overwhelming messages of support from almost every other country in the world. Not just from our historic allies but from many who have often been hostile to the US in the past. They have recognised that this is a fight for all humanity. Together, we can assure there is no hiding place, no safe haven, for those who planned these attacks and who may well wish to perpetrate even more. We assert the right to take any measure necessary to defend ourselves but we shall, so far as is compatible with that defence, work with all countries who demonstrate their willingness to join in this great fight.
On September 11 we saw the best and worst of humanity. The worst who carried out these atrocious, sadistic acts; the best from our citizens, our fire-fighters and police, many of whom sacrificed their own lives in their attempt to save others. If we ever needed reassurance that right will prevail, that was it. Good can came out of these terrible events – those still living under tyranny can breathe free; those that promise salvation through death and destruction will be humiliated, vanquished, rejected and ejected. That is the best way to honour our dead and the most devastating response to our enemies.
Thank you for listening. God bless you and your families. And God Bless America.
The sad thing is that in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, that would seem to be pretty much the public response from Bush and his administration. I was also struck, when watching Fox News's replay of their coverage of the day, just how moderate was THEIR response to the horrific, obscene events as they unfolded. On the phone to Al Haig, they discussed the 'calm and measured' response that should be made by the US.
Of course, it takes more than fine words to produce the right actions, but let us assume that if such a speech should be made it was sincere and was followed through. We might now be looking at a very different world; one in which the first decade of the 21st century was to the Middle East what the last of the 20th century was to eastern Europe.
I am not the only one laying the 'What If' game. The idea – voiced by a representative of the US State Department on today's Andrew Marr show on BBC television - that the removal of Saddam directly or indirectly led to the Arab spring of 2011, is ludicrous and contemptible. The events in Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Libya are more likely to have been postponed than hastened, with those opposed to reforms being able to argue that changes in regime, sponsored by the US, were in that country's interests and that you are a dupe and a patsy if you went along with it.
The right response, surely, was once you had attacked the strongholds and hideouts of Al Qaeda, to work, supply train and provide intelligence for those who are working to overthrow the numerous vicious regimes in the world. In doing so, there would be far fewer, if any grieving families and shattered lives of our own young men and women in the armed forces. Has it – and is it – sacrifice worth making? If a single member of our own Cabinet had one son or daughter in harm's way I might be prepared to believe they are sincere in their claims. But unless you, dear reader, would think that the loss of your own children would be 'a price worth paying' we have no right to state this.
My own philosophy in life and one that I think can be extended to a national policy is: "we seek to be on good terms with all other people, but don't f**k with us, or we'll have you! Or to put it more diplomatically, (and I write as one who is certainly not a pacifist and who is very hawkish on defence): we shall mind our own business and seek only to live our lives and run our own country in our own way. But be under no illusion of our power to destroy you and make no mistake: if we perceive a credible and immediate threat from you against us, we shall do so.
Re-watching the iconic, horrific images of the day (a feeling of sickness; rather shameful to watch the planes go in and the towers collapse, when you know you are watching the destruction of thousands of innocent lives; the thud-thud-of the bodies falling being the most distressing of all) makes me think about all kinds of personal associations with New York, America and views on politics, domestic and geo-political. I first visited New York in May 1977; a 19 year old starting what I regarded as Life's Great Adventure. I had travelled on my own and it was highly unusual then for anyone outside the very rich, top professional and 'meeja' classes to visit the USA. I was certainly the only person at the paper who had ever travelled to America (and three years before that I had crossed the Atlantic to stay with relatives in Newfoundland – almost unheard of then) and probably one of only a handful in the whole town. New York was then notorious for its violence, especially its murder rate – I think it was the highest in the world. A man was stabbed in the bus behind me on the drive from JFK Airport. The hotel I had booked – by post, of course – was $15 a night, on Seventh Avenue; the cheapest listed in the tourist guide I had sent for. It was essentially a brothel, which also had rooms you could rent by the day, as well as the hour. When I arrived, there were several transvestites in the foyer. As I was unpacking, I noticed that, across the little courtyard from my room, a 'sex worker' and her client were well away – there were no curtains in the window and the light was on (perhaps so the Pimp could keep an eye on things). I was not only living the dream, I was seeing a real-life 'video' of the song: a combination of The Boxer and Walk on the Wild Side! (Whether or not 'there were times when I took some comfort there' will have to wait for my autobiography!). And I loved it! When you hit the streets the energy was amazing.
At that time there were no real skyscrapers in the UK – no Canary Wharf, no 'Gherkin', and even though you have seen it so many times in the movies and on TV, nothing really prepares you for it. Included on my list of things to do was of course the World Trade Center – then only some four years old. In truth, I was keener to go up the Empire State Building, and climb up the rickety steps into the crown of the Statue of Liberty. The twin towers were a bit flash: dedicated to commerce, but still - the ride in the elevator was amazing, as was the view.
But, of course, it was the radio that entranced me. Prior to my trip I had heard a few snippets of the Top 40 giant WABC – the station was being played in the Yellow Cab my first day there. If there is ever a movie of my life (bit unlikely!) there will be a sequence when I am viewing Manhattan from the back of the cab and long-time morning show DJ 'Happy Harry Harrison would be on WABC, playing Stevie Wonder's Sir Duke. But the biggest revelation was the all-news station, 1010 WINS. I was immediately taken by their voice-over jingle ident:
New York wants to know. And we know it! This is WINS. You give US 22 minutes, we'll give YOU the world."
Several questions: why 22 minutes? Not 15, 20 or 25? And how about: "We'll give you the world!"?! The confidence, the chutzpah of it. You didn't get that on the BBC, or even on London's LBC - the commercial speech station in London, largely modelled on WINS.
And then the way the newscaster would introduce himself: "I am (Stan Z Burns) and here's what's happening". Note – not what HAS happened! But (present tense) what's happening NOW!
I had to visit the station. Obliging as they nearly always are, this was arranged. The Program Director couldn't see me until the end of the day…4 o'clock OK? Yessir!
I was fascinated and intrigued by so much of it – not least that the constant ticker-tape noise behind the newscasters was (of course!) a sound effect, on a continuous loop cartridge. We'd done most of the tour of the newsroom and studios, when something amazing happened – word broke through that a helicopter had crashed 'atop' the Pan Am Building. This was a service to take business types from JFK by Sikorski helicopter to and from downtown Manhattan. That afternoon, as its passengers were disembarking, it collapsed, even as the rotor blades were still whirring, slicing into bits four commuters; it then toppled over and bits fell into the street, killing a passer-by. Naturally, the newsroom went nuts; reporters were dispatched, phones were bashed. I wrote in my diary later: "THIS WAS THE MOST EXCITING DAY OF MY LIFE!" Well, I am sorry if that sounds callous, but if you don't as a journalist just live for – dream - of being in a newsroom moments like that, you have no right to be a journalist!
"You Limeys sure pick the right day to visit an all-nooz station" proclaimed the Director, mopping his brow.
So I took New York, its people, its media, its ATTITUDE to my heart. Before going to upstate New York to stay with family friends in leafy White Plains, I took the Greyhound to Washington DC, stopping off at Arlington Cemetery en route at the graves of John and Robert Kennedy, where I paid my respects – in tears, certainly. But the most inspiring thing, after the tour of the White House, and the National Air and Space Museum to see the Apollo craft (I was a space nut as well) was visiting the Congressional Library to view the original documents of the Constitution of the United States, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence. Documents that are so straightforward, economic in their wording and yet so powerful. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The First Amendment to the Constitution (the FIRST!) guaranteeing press (and religious) freedom. That is the American dream and its gift to the world. Because I am an optimist and because my life experience is that, in the end, good does triumph and life gets better, and despite all the terrible mistakes made by the USA, I believe it IS mankind's last best hope: the only country with both the will and the means to defend and promote liberty, whatever the threat and the provocation, and that its spirit and that, specifically of New York, will prevail. What If? As New York Senator Robert Kennedy said:
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?
Comments