July 31, 2007
Hidden story behind conspiracies
[This is my latest FT newspaper column, drawing on suggestions from an earlier blog post. My other newspaper columns can be read here — most require an FT.com subscription.]
Conspiracy theorists have a bad reputation. They are usually portrayed as paranoid, isolated, deluded people, best avoided.
It is true that there are many sinister and unpleasant conspiracy theories. These are usually the ones that seek to blame all the world’s ills on a single racial or social group – Jews, Catholics, Freemasons.
But there are also conspiracy theories that are delightfully dotty. A friend in Ankara tells me many Turks are convinced that, during the cold war, the Russians infested the Sea of Marmara with a sturgeon-devouring predator that sent these valuable fish fleeing into the Russian bit of the Black Sea – thus allowing the Russians to control the world’s supply of caviar. That is a theory worthy of James Bond.
The idea that conspiracy theorists are an isolated bunch, on the fringes of society, is also wide of the mark. Some theories are so widely believed that they are now almost mainstream. A recent BBC opinion poll suggested that only 43 per cent of Britons accept the official verdict that the car crash that killed Diana, Princess of Wales, was an accident. The countless “9/11” conspiracy theories also have a surprisingly wide audience – even in America. A Zogby poll last year found that 42 per cent of Americans think the US government is “covering up” facts about the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001.
Why do conspiracy theories command such a wide audience? I have my own theory about that.
There are four environments that help to create and sustain paranoia about secret plots. There are closed societies – typified in the Middle East. There are divided societies, such as the US and Spain. There are countries with a genuinely conspiratorial elite, such as Russia. And finally, even in government, there are certain types of people who are natural conspiracy theorists.
The Middle East is particularly fertile ground for people peddling theories about plots. Ahmad Ashraf, an Iranian academic, says that Persians “have relied on conspiracy theories as a basic mode of understanding politics and history”. Given their history, this is understandable to a degree. There really was a successful Central Intelligence Agency plot to overthrow the Iranian government in 1953. Other Middle Eastern countries have similar tales to tell. The Anglo-French Suez invasion of 1956 fits the narrative of a conspiracy theory very neatly – there was a secret agreement and the official reason for the intervention was a pretext.
But there is also something internal to Middle Eastern countries that may foster conspiracy theories. A friend who visited Egypt after 9/11 reported back that he could find almost nobody who believed that al-Qaeda had carried out the attacks. My colleague thought that it had something to do with not having a free press. If you start from the notion that the mainstream news is nonsense, then almost anything could be true.
But if censorship promotes paranoia in the Middle East, how does one account for the popularity of conspiracy theories in the US? Bumper stickers that proclaim: “I don’t believe the liberal media” reflect the deep mistrust and political divisions between liberals and conservatives. Who knows what The New York Times or CNN are concealing for their own nefarious, liberal reasons? Perhaps it is those UN-controlled “black helicopters” buzzing around in the skies.
In Spain, the wounds of the Spanish civil war lie just beneath the surface of democratic politics and left and right still seem capable of believing the very worst of each other. Both sides have given vent to some pretty scurrilous theories about the “real story” behind the Madrid terrorist bombings of 2004.
Perhaps the most conspiratorial places that I have visited are Russia and Indonesia. In both places, the legacy of dictatorship and the existence of powerful secret services have created a deep belief that there is always a hidden narrative behind the official story.
Russians of all political persuasions often seem to react to any news event by asking: “Who benefits?” So if opponents of President Vladimir Putin gain credibility and sympathy because some of them have been murdered, perhaps Mr Putin’s opponents have actually organised the killings themselves? And if President Putin launched the Chechen wars after terrorist attacks in Moscow, perhaps the Russian government itself was the hidden hand behind the explosions?
Many Russians and students of Russia believe these theories. This can create a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you believe that the other side is engaging in nefarious conspiracies, it would be foolish not to do a bit of plotting and provocation yourself.
All this suggests that conspiracy theories flourish above all among the powerless or in undemocratic countries. But even powerful people in the free world can be drawn to conspiracy theories. A long career in the intelligence services can sometimes drive people slightly potty. James Jesus Angleton, a famous head of counter-intelligence for the CIA during the cold war, eventually came to suspect that the heads of several allied governments were KGB agents. He compared the effort to foil Soviet espionage with being trapped in a “wilderness of mirrors”.
When powerful people begin to see hidden narratives and plots around them, the consequences can be dangerous. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, one of my more conspiratorial pals told me: “Iraq did this. Take a look at Laurie Mylroie’s book.” So I bought a copy of Ms Mylroie’s work, Saddam Hussein’s Unfinished War Against America.
It attempted to prove that the Iraqis had been behind numerous terrorist attacks on the US, including the first assault on the World Trade Center in 1993. But even more interesting than the contents of the book were the glowing endorsements on the back – from people such as Paul Wolfowitz, then number two at the defence department and Richard Perle, then chairman of the Pentagon’s advisory board. The Mylroie thesis has now been widely debunked. But – at a crucial moment – some important American officials bought the theory that Iraq was the hidden hand behind terrorist attacks on America.
Many conspiracy theorists are convinced that there is a secret story behind America’s decision to invade Iraq. It is also possible, however, that America went to war partly because some senior officials had themselves fallen prey to a conspiracy theory. But perhaps I am getting lost in the wilderness of mirrors.
Entertaining article. However, the fact that many Americans are skeptical on 9/11 should not be a surprise since the US government invaded Iraq claiming there were weapons of mass destruction and after that didn’t pan out, claimed we invaded Iraq to bring ‘democracy’ to Iraq. The Bush administration has a penchant for secrecy. Given that the 9/11 event was really a bizarre and unique event (i.e. - steel buildings collapsing due to fire, planes flying into the Pentagon, etc.) of course given our government many people will be suspicious. The whole thing is weird to say the least.
Posted by: Bill Goedecke | July 31st, 2007 at 5:12 pm | Report this commentYou’re just great a journalist, I’m a big fan…
Posted by: ibn rushd | July 31st, 2007 at 7:19 pm | Report this commentAren’t you referring to what Ibsen and Mises referred to as the “saving lie”, and the effects of what psychologists might describe as cognitive dissonance? People build an image of the world in their mind that serves to bolster their self-esteem, and when reality impinges, they will construct all manner of strange and improbable explanations to allow them to preserve that image of the world, rather than question it and thereby also question their image of themselves. Your four environments are places where many people cling to images of the world that bear little resemblance to reality. We can take the prevalence of such conspiracy theories as a warning about how those delusions may manifest themselves in more dangerous ways in the future.
Posted by: bgp | August 1st, 2007 at 2:11 pm | Report this commentGideon Rachman can hardly be serious when he says that former high US officials such as the two prominent neocons, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, might have “fallen prey” to the “conspiracy theory” that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Far from being taken in by this theory, Wolfowitz, Perle, and the entire Bush administration actively promoted it. Are we to believe that the neocons who started this terrible war with Iraq, and are even now beating the drums for war with Iran (see John Bolton’s August 1 column) were suckered by their own propaganda? Or were they rather just using the time-honored technique of the big lie?
And what were Saddam’s supposed WMD and reconstituted nuclear programs, if not a conspiracy theory of the highest order? Why does Mr. Rachman, flying in the face of reality, dismiss legitimate concerns over the Iraq war - oil connection as just conpiracy talk, as he does in July 19 article?
Roger Algase
Posted by: Roger Algase | August 2nd, 2007 at 5:31 am | Report this commentNew York NY 10024
A typographical correction: My final sentence should have ended: “… in his July 19 article.” My apologies.
Roger Algase
Posted by: Roger Algase | August 2nd, 2007 at 5:34 am | Report this commentRoger, Have a look at this (http://tinyurl.com/qy7ac), for one version of what Saddam and the Americans knew about Saddam’s supposed WMD. As cock-up rather than conspiracy, I find it quite persuasive. It seems to match what one would imagine of the characters involved, and Saddam’s bizarre ambivalence about his military capability, more closely than the rather Machiavellian interpretation that the conspiracy theory requires.
Whether it absolves those who used WMD as an excuse for war is another matter. At the least, some people seem to have misunderstood the nature of intelligence, which is pretty serious when they are involved in decisions on deploying armed forces. And quite possibly, some people understood the nature of intelligence but chose to take a simplistic view in this instance because it served their purpose - I would concede the suggestion of conspiracy to that extent. But that is different to suggesting that the fear that Saddam might have had WMD was a figment of their imagination - they (along with most of those who opposed the war) seem to have had good reason to be unsure, but not as much reason to be sure as they claimed.
Posted by: bgp | August 3rd, 2007 at 1:20 am | Report this commentI’ve recently come across a refreshingly new version of the UK-Russia Litvinenko/Lugovoy conflict explanation. Basically, it says that, faced with the dwindling own fuel reserves, the UK has bet on obtaining more resources in Russia, one of its key production markets (allegedly 7% of production for Shell and up to 50% of combined production and resources for BP). Here is a quote from the article:
“Great Britain is in fact the only country in the West that self-sufficient in hydrocarbons thanks to its North Sea resources. But it was already clear in the mid 1990s that oil and gas production in the North Sea […] is no longer growing but dropping slowly. […] this means that by 2007-2012, the UK will have faced a serious shortage of energy resources.
Making up for this shortage is a major objective of the British government and business. Although BP has lost Kovykta [in Russia], its output in Russia is still large enough, and any risky steps could expose it to danger. The UK, however, has little room for maneuver. So it has to play a grand, if not an all-or-nothing game. Continental Europe, having no resources of its own, has already agreed to the rules of the game proposed by Russia (cooperation on Gazprom’s terms and conditions in Russia and the monopoly’s gradual entrance into its markets). First it was Germany and then Italy (the agreement between Gazprom and Eni, based on Berlusconi-Putin accords). And now France has agreed to Gazprom’s proposal (agreement with Total on the Shtokman field and access to French gas transmission networks through the local Suez). Only Britain is left. If it fails to change something or play back by building up its positions in Russia or by weakening Gazprom’s positions in Europe, it will be too late afterward. In effect, Britain is now provoking not only Russia but also the EU by proposing to it a joint attack on Russia to make it play by the British rules, i.e., getting more Russian gas fields while keeping its strategic assets to itself. [However,] The British elite are not ready to pursue its strategy, mindful of the country’s objective dependence on Russia and its gas supplies. It has therefore taken on a mission of organizing the West’s crusade against Russia.”
The full text in English may be read here:
http://eng.expert.ru/printissues/expert/2007/28/rossiysko_britanskie_otnosheniya/
And there are more advanced versions of this, some of them claiming that Blair was backed up by - and supported in his turn - BP, while Brown enjoys closer relations with Shell, and their recent swap was dictated by the power struggle, partly related to assets in Russia, between the two financial establishments behind the groups, including the Royal family (BP) and the British branch of the Rothschilds. (see the text in Russian at
http://www.apn.ru/publications/comments17514.htm#comments)
I’m wondering whether Mr Rachman would like to comment.
Posted by: Evgueni | August 3rd, 2007 at 12:14 pm | Report this commentBy the way, one of the four UK diplomats expelled from Moscow in a tit-for-tat move was Andrew Levi, councellor for economic affairs who had played a major role in clinching oil and gas deals for British businesses in Russia. From the conspiracy theories’ standpoint this seems quite logical - the Kremlin understand the Brown cabitet’s true motives and responds ‘adequately’, as indeed it had promised to do from the start of the row.
Posted by: Evgueni | August 3rd, 2007 at 2:09 pm | Report this commentas long as they pay you at the end of every month eh?
Posted by: Anonymous | August 4th, 2007 at 7:03 am | Report this commentFalse Flag Operations in Spain?
Posted by: spanish conspiranoico | August 4th, 2007 at 8:02 pm | Report this commentAt the risk of adding another mirror to your collection I wish to take issue with your concluding observations. Your attribution of motivation for the support of the Iraq War on the part of the two prominent neoconservatives you cited - Mr. Wolfowitz and Mr. Perle - I believe places the cart before the horse. It is my opinion that the strong endorsements provided by these two individuals did not so much reflect an eye opening experience upon reading Ms. Mylroie’s book as it provided a convenient justification for an already established tenet of neoconservative doctrine, namely, that Saddam Hussein must go.
This doctrine was forged in the crucible of Desert Storm when Saddam posed an existential threat to Israel by attacking it with SCUDs. The allegiance of the neoconservative community to Israel is primary and the possiblity that one day Iraq might be able to attack Israel with SCUDs carrying WMD amounted to thinking the unthinkable. From that day forward the objective of regime change in Iraq was foremost in neocon thinking. The only thing lacking was the opportunity. Opportunity knocked in the form of 9/11. Ms. Mylroie’s book was merely a stepping stone.
Posted by: Kenneth Ewen | August 4th, 2007 at 11:16 pm | Report this comment“as long as they pay you at the end of every month eh?
Posted by: | August 04, 2007 at 07:03 AM”
Interesting that this checkbook allegation is THE MOST favoured argument with staff (and mind you, always anonymous!) secret service contributors trying to undermine their opponents’ more liberal views at Russia’s newspaper forums. Well, East or West, most people are really no different, and their argumentative abilities are sadly at the same unimpressively low level whether they come from “totalaitarian” or “democratic” societies.
Posted by: Evgueni | August 6th, 2007 at 11:14 am | Report this commentIf the Zogby poll is true that 42% of Americans think the government is “covering up” facts about the 9/11 attacks, then that would raise a completely different question. Where are those 126 million Americans hiding? And why they are afraid of expressing their views in public, instead they are choosing to speak their mind under the secrecy cover of a poll!
Posted by: Naji Arwashan | August 6th, 2007 at 2:44 pm | Report this commentWhat is striking and probably unique about the conspiracy theory in the Middle East is that it is shared by everyone on the social and academic scale. From the taxi driver to the university professor, from the blue collar worker to the businessman all believe that whatever happens on the political scene is part of the “Big Plan”. Could that be because people in their unconscious way would like to buy their tranquility and their peace of mind by believing that there is a mysterious invincible super intelligent power manipulating their life and destiny!
What I find interesting about the conspiracy theory is that in general the subjects of the theory do very little to deny it! One interesting conspiracy theory was widely circulating in the Middle East after the first golf war that part of the “Plan” is to keep Saddam Hussein in power. And it is well reported that Saddam used to take advantage of this theory to intimidate his enemies by keeping them under the impression that he has the backing of the Americans!
All governments lie. Therefore they plough the ground, fertilize it and plant the seeds of conspriacy. So what else is new?
Posted by: d | August 8th, 2007 at 3:19 pm | Report this commentAll governments lie. Therefore they plough the ground, fertilize it and plant the seeds of conspriacy. So what else is new?
Posted by: d | August 8th, 2007 at 3:20 pm | Report this commentEven the paranoid have enemies, as H Kissinger said. Conspiracy theories are not false ipso facto. If you do not believe what the late Alexander Litvinenko wrote in his 2002 book, “Blowing up Russia: Terror from within”, about the apartment buildings explosions in 1999, you almost certainly haven’t read it.
Posted by: Jeremy | August 30th, 2007 at 11:05 am | Report this comment