Justice ignited: the dynamics of backfire Brian Martin (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007) This is the text as submitted to the publisher. It differs from the published text due to copyediting changes, different pagination and omission of the index. Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Sharpeville 7 3. Dili 16 4. Dharasana 24 5. The beating of Rodney King 30 6. Target: whistleblowers 46 7. The dismissal of Ted Steele 55 8. Environmental disasters 69 by Hannah Lendon and Brian Martin 9. The invasion of Iraq 79 10. Abu Ghraib 90 by Truda Gray and Brian Martin 11. Countershock: challenging pushbutton torture 99 by Brian Martin and Steve Wright 12. Terrorism as predictable backfire 109 13. Theory and backfire 118 14. Conclusion 144 Appendix: Methods of inhibiting and amplifying outrage from injustice 154 Acknowledgements Working on the backfire model and this book has been an exciting process because so many people have been involved in exchanging ideas. First of all I thank my collaborators on studies of backfire: Sharon Callaghan, Susan Engel, Truda Gray, David Hess, Sue Curry Jansen, Hannah Lendon, Iain Murray, Samantha Reis, Will Rifkin, Greg Scott, Kylie Smith, and Steve Wright. In my class “Media, war, and peace,” many students used the backfire model on original cases; their investigations helped confirm the value of the model. At seminars and workshops, I’ve received many valuable comments on backfire, including how to extend and refine the model. In preparing this book, David Hess and Steve Wright offered many insightful comments on structure and content. Truda Gray and Greg Scott went through drafts with fine toothcombs, picking up all sorts of points and pushing my understanding. Jeff Ross read many chapters with his acute editorial eye. Several others, including Philip Kitley, Joe Nevins, and Tom Weber, saved me from errors. Kevin Wehr, as external reviewer for Rowman & Littlefield, made many valuable suggestions and generously waived anonymity, allowing me to follow up specific points. Iain Murray showed how backfire analysis can help in campaigning against an injustice. I give specific acknowledgments in footnotes and at the ends of chapters. To all of you, my greatest appreciation. The project that led to this book was supported by the Australian Research Council. I thank Matt Hammon, Alan McClare, and Alex Masulis at Rowman & Littlefield, who have shepherded the book to publication. Brian Martin, Justice Ignited, chapter 1 (author’s prepublication version) 1 Introduction What do these four events have in common? • Corporations frequently take reprisals against critics, especially their own em- • General Motors spied on Ralph Nader in ployees, without much publicity. In con- 1965. trast, General Motors’ investigation into • Los Angeles police beat motorist Rodney Nader was exposed and led to widespread media coverage. King in 1991. • Indonesian troops shot and killed protesters • Los Angeles police previously had beaten in Dili, East Timor in 1991. lots of other people, but few of these cases received much attention. King’s beating • U.S. military forces invaded Iraq in 2003. was different: it was captured on videotape by observer George Holliday and broadcast First, each event involved an injustice, at least on television nationally and internationally. in the eyes of quite a few observers. • Although Indonesian troops occupying East • For General Motors, a giant corporation, to Timor had committed many massacres in spy on and seek to discredit Nader seemed the 15 years before 1991, they received a devious and dishonorable response to limited attention due to censorship. The Dili what Nader had done, namely writing the massacre, unlike earlier killings, was wit- book Unsafe at Any Speed that alerted the nessed by western journalists and recorded public to shortcomings in auto safety. in photos and video, and later broadcast internationally. • For four Los Angeles police — with many more present at the scene — to strike • Some earlier U.S. invasions, such as in Rodney King dozens of times, while he was Panama, Grenada, and Haiti, were initiated apparently lying on the ground posing no quickly and completed before protest could threat, seemed to many to be a clear case of build momentum. The 2003 invasion of abuse. Iraq, in contrast, was publicly planned months in advance and subject to sustained • For Indonesian troops to shoot peaceful public debate. protesters appeared to most observers to be an obvious atrocity. Finally, each of the four events backfired • For the world’s leading military power to against those held responsible. launch an unprovoked attack on another state — one already weakened by a decade • General Motors’ secret investigation of of international sanctions — seemed to Nader, once exposed, turned public opinion many people to be unfair. It was also said to against auto manufacturers and dramati- be a violation of international law. cally raised Nader’s profile, giving him the clout to instigate more effective challenges to the companies. Another feature of these four events is that they received extensive publicity. Unlike some • The beating of Rodney King led to highly earlier cases, lots of people became aware of adverse publicity for the four police officers these instances. involved in the beating and for the Los 2 Justice Ignited Angeles police force generally. The four with less power. In each case, two factors — a officers were taken to court and two of perception of injustice and awareness of the them sent to prison. events by significant audiences — were crucial • The Dili massacre, rather than discouraging in making the action counterproductive. This opposition to Indonesian rule over East is the particular type of backfire I examine in Timor, instead triggered a massive expan- this book. sion in international support for East Backfire can refer to an outcome or a Timor’s independence. process. A backfire, as an outcome, occurs when an action is counterproductive for the • The U.S.-led attack on Iraq reduced the perpetrator. Backfire, as a process, is the standing of the U.S. government, as meas- struggle over the meaning and consequences ured in public opinion polls, throughout of an action. My main attention is on backfire most of the world. Furthermore, rather than as a process, in other words on the dynamics reducing terrorist threats to U.S. citizens, it of backfire. may have increased the risk. The word “boomerang” can be used as an alternative to “backfire.” A related concept is In short, these four events are examples of a “blowback,” a term used to describe unfore- phenomenon that can be called backfire: an seen adverse consequences of government action that recoils against its originators. In a policies, especially covert operations. Backfire backfire, the outcome is not just worse than is a more general concept: it applies to many anticipated — it is negative, namely worse areas outside the government level and deals than having done nothing. with tactics as well as outcomes. (See chapter All sorts of things can backfire, especially 13 for more on blowback.) when someone takes on those with more To refer to the emotional response to at- power. Children who steal from their parents tacks, injustice, or norm violations, I mostly might be chastised, denied privileges, or use the term “outrage,” in the sense of fierce worse. An employee who openly insults the anger or indignation. I use “outrage” as a boss could be punished by being denied a surrogate for a wide array of emotional promotion, being transferred, or even fired. A responses captured by terms such as anger, murderer who is caught is likely to end up in shock, indignation, revulsion, disgust, antago- prison. Because openly challenging those with nism, and concern. The basic idea is that a more power is so predictably counterproduc- person is upset by something and feels action tive, most people avoid it most of the time. should be taken about it. If this sort of emo- Breaking the rules is risky if you get caught. tional response is expressed, verbally and But there’s an exception: if you’re power- through actions, by sufficient numbers of ful, often you can get away with it. Abusive people, it can lead to backfire as an outcome. bosses insult employees without much come- back. Powerful corporations threaten legal Inhibiting Outrage action against small businesses, most of which acquiesce. Repressive regimes commit human Backfires against powerful attackers are un- rights abuses against opponents; often few usual, so it’s worth asking, what do attackers people know about this and even fewer try to do that prevents or inhibits backfire? There are oppose it. Those with power can make the five important methods for inhibiting the rules but then enforce them only against outrage that can lead to backfire. others. The four cases of backfire — against 1 Cover-up: information about the event is General Motors, the Los Angeles police, the prevented from reaching receptive audi- Indonesian military, and the U.S. government ences. — are unusual, because the backfires were against those with more power attacking those Introduction 3 2 Devaluation of the target: the moral worth may be denied. A perpetrator can deny an act of an individual or group suffering injustice occurred, deny knowledge of the act, deny the is reduced. action meant what others think it does, and 3 Reinterpretation: the event or situation is deny any intention to cause the act. Authorities claimed not to be what it seems. may start by denying that anyone was killed at a protest. When the evidence becomes over- 4 Official channels: the issue is dealt with whelming, they may accept that someone died through formal procedures — such as but deny having known anything about it. Or courts or inquiries — or pronouncements they may agree that protesters died, but say it by authorities or experts, giving an appear- was the protesters’ fault and that police were ance of providing justice.