PROPAGANDA & WORLD PEACE

HOW WESTERN COUNTRIES HAVE USED PROPAGANDA
We will have all watched with interest, and perhaps, horror, the debates and protests over the West's involvement in the Iraq war. Most people tend to polarise into one camp or another. They either think that Saddam was a vicious dictator who should have been removed regardless. On the other side are protestors, and much of the Middle East, believing that the West was only involved in an effort to keep oil prices low. The truth, as in so many of these cases, lies somewhere in between.

Western nations very rarely go to war purely on humaniatarian grounds. Many wars, such as World War 2, appeared to be a simple case of good versus evil, yet the USA only became involved after a direct attack by Japan, and a long range view to provide a buffer against the USSR in Europe. Australia and England's involvement in the Iraq war was encouraged by the long-term benefits that would come from an alliance with the world's largest nation.

Before going to war, politicians weigh up the many benefits and disadvantages that come from going to war. When the benefits are larger, the war must then be presented to the public as a 'good thing'. This is when the subtle propaganda machine enters, carefully presenting us versus them as good versus evil.

This does not mean that Western governments aren't wanting peace, democracy and human rights in other countries. These ideals will generally benefit Western nations so they will be promoted. But they are often the glossy exterior to the major motivations of looking for beneficial trade deals, ensuring a stable cheap oil supply and other geo-political considerations. Indeed, humanitarian interventions are often criticised. When American troops were killed in Somalia, the public quickly turned against US intervention as soldier's were dying for no direct benefit to the USA.

Examples abound. Hussein's overthrow was justified largely over his human rights record, yet the USA has supported far worse dictators in Latin America. Why did Australia actively support East Timor's struggle for independence recently, when nothing was said as Indonesia invaded decades ago? Why does England keeps its hold on Ireland while actively promoting independence for other nations invaded by others?

An important part of achieving world peace is to become educated enough to see beyond the subtle propaganda your politicians may present you with. There will be times when military intervention is the only outcome left (many would agree the Yugoslavian conflict is a good example), but generally speaking many of the West's 'just' wars and simply just wars to gain some long-term benefit, with a humanitarian gloss.

PROPAGANDA AS MYTH-BUILDING
It is probable that most people, for most of the time, believe that war may sometimes be necessary to preserve national integrity or the international order. In time of war or impending war governments use a variety of types of propaganda to enhance this belief, and to persuade their citizens that the war is just. Colonial wars were often justified by an image of the local population as intrinsically violent and barbarous, while the conquerors, who had of course been the original invaders and had the more destructive weapons, were presented as intrinsically peaceful: a reciprocal image has justified the use of violence by the anti-colonialists.

Comparable myths have been used in virtually every war, including the two world wars and the recent intra-state conflicts. Often war is justified by prejudice - by hatreds passed down through successive generations so that those who actually fight have no personal contact with, and may even be ignorant of, its original cause (Papadakis, 1995; Reinharz & Mosse, 1992). Given that the war is seen as just, it seems to follow that it is the citizens' duty to contribute to the war effort or to fight, and that victory will be achieved.

The effectiveness of such myths depends on channelling national pride and traditions, religious beliefs, and the demands of the situation into nationalism by the use of images whose force depends in part on pan-cultural psychological characteristics. It is helpful here to distinguish between patriotism, involving love of one's country, and nationalism, implying a feeling of superiority and need for power over other national groups. Using questionnaires during the Cold War period, Feshbach (1995) showed that patriotism and nationalism, although correlated, can be distinguished. At that time individuals high on nationalism were more hawkish about the use of nuclear weapons, but less willing to risk their lives for their country, than those high on patriotism.

There is evidence for USA citizens that listening to a patriotic anthem augments patriotism, while listening to martial music promotes nationalism. Another study found that, amongst students, nationalism was associated with higher values placed on military power and dominance, and on economic opportunity, and lower values on political democracy, than patriotism. War may be seen as inevitable to safeguard national independence and values, and nationalism is fostered by politicians and individuals other than those who do the actual killing.
Clearly, both patriotism and nationalism are related to in-group/out-group discrimination, as discussed above. Studies have shown that discrimination may arise from enhanced favoritism to in-group members without any change in affect to others, or from enhanced denigration of those different from oneself, or from inter-group competition, the first corresponds to patriotism, the second to nationalism, and the third is inevitable in a war situation.

The propaganda used in wartime exploits both tendencies. Customs such as saluting the flag and playing the national anthem, parades and ceremonies, enhance love of one's country, but may also invite comparison with and thus denigration of others. Patriotism is augmented also by perception of the country as the 'mother-country' or 'fatherland', and by the unconscious perception of fellow-countrymen as kin. It can thus be seen as parasitic on the biological propensity to help related individuals. Nationalism is augmented by categorization of the enemy as such, and this is assisted by propaganda portraying them as evil, dangerous, and even as sub-human: such images depend for their effectiveness on group solidarity, fear of strangers, and defensiveness.

Portrayal of the enemy as sub-human, evil and lacking in individuality helps to justify aggression against them, while at the same time fostering perception of the in-group as righteous and increasing self-esteem. In other cases the leader or some other prominent figure is demonized. Thus in the Gulf war, Saddam Hussein was demonized, and his soldiers seen as sharing his guilt. Nationalism is fostered also by propaganda emphasizing the superiority of the nation to which the recipients belong: this both supports the supposed inferiority of the enemy, and can be used to justify or conceal atrocities perpetrated on the enemy. Interestingly, however, attempts to make front-line soldiers hate the enemy can be counter-productive, being taken as insulting to their own intelligence and as an attempt to deprive them of their right to personal opinions.