democratic Republic against fascism, only to discover that there was effectively, a second war taking place behind Government lines, with the Communist Party, the liberals and right-wing socialists on one side and the left socialists, the anarcho-syndicalists and the POUM (in which Orwell was fighting) on the other.
His first visit to Barcelona in December 1936 convinced Orwell that a social revolution was taking place:
"Practically every building of any size had been seized by the workers and was draped with red flags or with the red and black flag of the Anarchists ... Every shop and café had an inscription saying it had been collectivized; even the bootblacks had been collectivized and their boxes painted red and black. Waiters and shop-walkers looked you in the face and treated you as an equal... "There were no private motorcars, they had all been commandeered, and all the trams and taxis and much of the other transport were painted red and black.
For the Stalinists, however, the revolution was endangering their Popular Front with the liberal bourgeoisie, which they saw as essential to win the war. Whereas the non-stalinist left saw the war and the revolution as inseparable, the Communist Party insisted that the revolution would have to wait until Franco was defeated. In the meantime, private property had to be protected, in order to reassure - who romanticised the Soviet Union and the parties of the Commintern. To a lesser extent. this tendency persists among sections of the left even today. In exposing the machinations of the Stalinists in Spain, Orwell made one of his most important contributions demonstating that the socialist project stands its best chance of success when it pursues its objectives with revolutionary determination, and that Stalinism, with all its bad faith and shabby compromises, is the very opposite of this.
Ken Loach's film, Land And Freedom, gave a wider audience a flavour of the conflict between the pro-Soviet and the independent left in Spain. Such events help to understand the hatred of Stalinism that was such a prominent feature of Orwell's later writings. This did, however, sometimes lead him to reactionary.positions -such as critical support for the USA in the Cold War, and an almost McCarthy-esque readiness to denounce anyone whom he believed to be doing Stalin's work in Britain. This is no more acceptable for being understandable, but it does not detract from the fact that Orwell's critique of Stalinism, from 1936 onwards, came clearly from the left.
The defence of intellectual honesty and critical judgement Orwell's experiences in Spain and their aftermath, sharpened his and commentators around the world, often by people who had no personal knowledge of the conflict or participants themselves.
In later years, Orwell regularly challenged those who were apologists for Stalinist and other totalitarians, and to the ritual denunciation of whichever enemy was their current target.
In a number of articles, and particularly his classic essay, 'Politics and the English Language', he described the way that intellectual adherents of a particular orthodoxy. would use pretentious language, abstract terms or worn-out metaphors to conceal the fact that they were defending the indefensible:
"People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them."
In opposition to this intellectual deceitfulness, Orwell vigorously insisted that political issues should be discussed in clear, concrete language - as he had always done himself.
And although the open, explicit manipulation and censorship of language described in Nineteen Eighty-Four has not come to pass, his concerns in this area remain topical today.
Despite the formal freedom of the press and a great diversity of information sources, 'news manRoland Rance A date has finally been set for the appeals of Samar Alari and jawad Botmeh, Palestinian activists sentenced to twenty-year prison terms after their wrongfully conviction in connection with the 1994 bombings of the Israeli Embassy and Zionist headquarters in London. The appeal, which starts on 24 October, will be their first chance dence which could have led to their to challenge the dence which could have led to thei acquittal.
Samar and lawad were convicted of "conspiracy to cause explosions" A co-defendant (who neither of them knew) was acquitted of actually planting the borbs, and the prosecution accepted that Samar and lawad had certainly not planted them. The trial was riddled with inconsistencies, with the prosecution mistakenly producing a map of Lebanon as a map of London, with the revelation of Israeli involvement in withholding forensic and video evidence, and with an attempt by an Israeli correspondent to interfere with the jury. None of this prevented the convictions and vicious prison sentences. Since the trial, it has been revealed (partly through David Shayler) that the prosecution withheld evidence from both the defence and the court, Far from operating, as they had claimed, in an intelligence vacuum, MIS had apparently received a tip-off that a foreign government was likely to bomb the Israeli Embassy. This would have exonerated Samar and Jawad, since the prosecution argued that they were not acting on behalf of any state.
Shayler has further revealed that an internal MI5 memo had argued that the Israelis bombed their own embassy. Although this memo is not proof, its production at the trial would. have seriously undermined the case against Samar and Jawad.
The use of Public Interest Immunity certificates to deny evidence to the defence has been ruled by the European Court of Human Rights, in the case of the M25 Three, to prejudice the right to a fair trial. Supporters expect this precedent to be applied in the case of Samar and lawad too As the defence campaign notes, had they been convicted by an Israeli court of an offence in which nobody was injured, they would by now, despite the faltering peace process, have been freed. But in Britain, unless the appeal succeeds, they can expect a further 16 years in prison, followed by deportation. • Picket the appeal, Royal Courts of fustice in the Strand, from 10.00 to 12.30, and from 14.00 to 16.00 on 24 October: • No More Miscarriages of Justice!Free Samar and jawad Now! Further information at http://www.freesaj.co.uk/
A monthly marxist review. No 38. October 2000. 50p Outlook Where next for Serbs after Milosevic? p8 8S) imi