Adored, praised
and feared. George Galloway's gone global
LOUISE HANCOCK and CATHERINE MacLEOD
May 23 2005
HE came, he saw, and - after a fashion - George Galloway conquered the United States. As the MP flew home from Washington this week, he couldn't be blamed for sitting back in his economy-class seat, putting his feet up and savouring the moment. Without a doubt, his flying visit to confront his American accusers was a triumph of political theatre.
He did not change their minds. He did not even get an apology. But his 24-hour visit to the US capital has turned him into an international media sensation. As his testimony was beamed live around the world through CNN, news shows featured him prominently and newspapers as far apart as the Minneapolis Star Tribune to Pravda in Russia and the Times of India ran reports the following day.
Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, who was also in town, must have been green with envy. In contrast, his own joint news conference with Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state - on North Korea - held the same day was practically ignored by the media.
There is no doubt that, as the dust settled yesterday, Galloway was still genuinely incandescent with anger at being accused and found guilty in front of the entire world. However, equally, there was no doubt that he also saw this as the greatest opportunity of his life - an international platform for his anti-war, anti-American, anti-Israeli views.
"I think it was a huge event, and I am used to big events," he said yesterday. "It is the biggest and most important event of my life."
Seasoned observers of the Washington scene agree that, for a British politician, let alone an anti-war one, he has made a rare impact on US politics. Jamie Dettmer, the director of communications at the Cato Institute, a prominent conservative think tank, says Galloway caused a "wow" in the city. "He has made DC sit up and take notice. Most people saw him as this pugnacious Scotsman taking on the Senate and applauded him for it."
Erik Leaver, of the Institute for Policy Studies, a left-leaning think tank, agrees. "He speaks honestly and from the heart, which is so unlike anything that we normally see in the US."
Yesterday, Galloway was still revelling in what he saw as an overwhelming victory over American arrogance. "I think it was a triumph. When I read the coverage here and in the States and glanced at the 5000 e-mails I've received - mainly from the United States - it is clear that others see it that way too. They were pleased to see someone go into the heart of American power and tell them the truth.
"They are not used to it and they don't like it. They are certainly not used to it from British politicians recently. It was important and gave a great deal of heart to people who think like me all over the world."
For Leaver, Galloway's visit has been especially important in giving a voice to a large section of the American public who have opposed the war but felt under-represented in both the media and in politics.
"It's not that there aren't vast numbers of people who didn't agree with going to war and questioned the administration's motives," he says. "It's that the politicians, perhaps because of sensitivity to the situation after 9/11, didn't seem to listen.
"Here we suddenly have a man who not only refuses to go along with the witch-hunt against the UN which is being conducted by most of our politicians, but who actually stands up and talks about aspects of US policy which we rarely hear about - like the terrible effects of sanctions on the Iraqi people. I sat there and cheered."
Dettmer, who has known Galloway for 25 years, agrees he has brought the issue of the Iraq war to the forefront in a way that has been lacking recently in American media. "He has certainly generated a huge amount of renewed interest in the anti-war movement. You have to put his appearance into context of the situation in this country. Post 9/11, there was very little questioning by the US media of the reasons for the war.
"The media were nervous about offending patriotic feelings generated by 9/11. As a result, there was very little dissent in the run-up to the Iraq war.
"This was a rare opportunity for Americans to hear a very aggressive, anti-war view put very succintly."
Bill Dobbs from United for Peace and Justice, the largest coalition of anti-war groups in the US, said: "The anti-war movement is both larger and more solid than it was three years ago. We now have a thousand member groups from across the US, both large and small. But we welcomed Mr Galloway's visit this week. Whatever issues were left unresolved as to his personal situation in his appearance at the Senate, he did bring much-needed attention to Bush's foreign policy with respect to Iraq."
Certainly Norm Coleman, the urbane Republican senator who chairs the committee, did not know what had hit him. Neither did the US press.
Unlike those in the House of Commons or Holyrood, Senate proceedings are formal, unhurried and dignified. "In boxing parlance, it was a bit of walkover," says Galloway.
US papers had never seen anything like it. They universally agreed Galloway had out-manoeuvred the senators and praised his eloquence. (At one point, fascinated journalists, desperate not to miss anything he might do, followed him out of the committee room - only to find that he was just popping into a nearby lavatory).
The New York Times, the grand old lady of the American press, said he had "seemed to catch a Senate committee off guard" and "his aggressive posture and tone seemed to flummox Norm". The report added that he had "more than held his own in front of the committee" and admiringly called him "a flamboyant orator and skilled debater".
CNN even referred to him as "the man of the hour" - although they also referred to him as "minister for parliament", a promotion even Galloway looked a little embarrassed about. The Washington Post called him a formidable debater who launched a "fiery attack on three decades of US policy toward Iraq".
The New York Post lambasted the "weak" Senate committee. In a report headlined "Brit fries senators in oil", the paper said Galloway "went eyeball to eyeball" in an appearance that was "stunning in its audacity", as he "launched a furious counter-assault on President Bush and Republican probers". It also concluded senators had been "caught flat-footed" by the fiery politician.
But even while the media were praising his skills as an orator, they pointed out that he had evaded certain questions and ran extensive comments from Coleman in which he insisted Galloway was "not credible".
The right wing papers and outlets found his anti-American, anti-Israel, pro-Palestine views unforgivable.
The New York Post columnist Andrea Peyser was one of those who has been extremely critical. Peyser, a notorious conservative, labels him an "arrogant, Saddam-loving bully.
"Speaking with an accent that was equal parts Mike Myers and Baghdad Bob, he administered a sound public thrashing of all things American.
"He insulted our administration. He decried the war against terror
as he hijacked Congress to unleash his outrageous, insulting tirade, our senators did not pipe up.
"Rather, they assumed the look of frightened little boys caught with pants around their ankles, nervously awaiting punishment."
However, the real question is not that Galloway has succeeded in stirring up the US media - he has certainly done that - but whether the effect of his visit will last. Will the anti-war lobby in America find its voice, or at least learn to speak louder?
He is in no doubt. "Yes, it is the biggest thing I have ever done, and the most important. If I were to drop dead now - God forbid - it would be for what I would be most remembered."
Certainly, it has raised his profile immeasurably. He is now being wooed for a speaking tour of the States - an offer which would have been unthinkable a week ago.
Dettmer, however, regards him as a one-day wonder. "The American media has a very short- term memory. This is a big country and stories come and go quickly.
"His testimony and performance will still be referred to for some time by anti-war groups. But there's little prospect of his profile remaining high in the long term.
"To be honest, he is still talking about the leadership being wrong to go to war. The situation has moved on. There is the real chance of democracy in Iraq having a long-term impact in the Middle East. But George wasn't dealing with that reality."
Leaver also thinks Galloway has had his day in the limelight. "In terms of the mainstream press, his day is over. Although papers like the New York Times ran stories on him this week, he wasn't front page news. It would take something extraordinary to put him back in the US media."
But Galloway probably will not care. He made his point and for a short time he had the ear of the world. For now, he has to be content with that.
