The greater the number of New York victims, the easier it is to justify bombing Afghanistan
STEPHEN GLOVER
T
he attack on the World Trade Center
T
on 11 September was without doubt the worst single act of terrorism ever committed. Those dreadful images will live with us for ever. There are grounds for believing, however, that the final death toll may be significantly lower than the 6,000 to 7,000 still being quoted almost universally by politicians and journalists. It is certain that the number of British dead is considerably less than the figure of several hundred first mentioned by Tony Blair.
On 11 September it was known that 266 people had died in the four aircraft hijacked by terrorists. The number of people murdered in the attack on the Pentagon settled quite soon at about 120. But for understandable reasons the figure for fatalities in the World Trade Center remained lost in confusion for many days. As people reported that relatives and friends were missing, the toll began to climb. By 23 September it was put at 6,453. Since then it has declined virtually day by day. The principal reason is thought to be double counting. It is also believed that foreign consulates inadvertently overestimated the number of their nationals who were missing.
By last week the official toll had fallen to a little over 4.700. When I spoke to an official in the mayor's office in New York on Tuesday of this week, the latest figure was 4,655. This comprised 465 described as identified dead, 54 unidentified dead and 4,136 still reported missing. It is likely that the overall toll will go on falling as the number of missing people continues to drop, though it is impossible to say what the final figure will be. According to Police Chief Charles Campisi, The list is in a state of flux and it will continue to be,' Some news organisations in New York are suggesting much lower numbers than the mayor's office. For example, the tally of victims kept by Associated Press stands at around 2,600, though the news agency expects this to grow as the authorities use DNA to identify remains, a process that will cause the number of identified bodies to rise considerably. One might hazard a guess that the final grisly toll may lie somewhere between 3,000 and 4,000, possibly tending towards the latter figure.
We can be more categorical about British fatalities. On 13 September the Times reported, 'British figures could run into hundreds, Downing Street said last night.' On 16 September Tony Blair told CNN: 'Probably
200 to 300 people from Britain will have died in these attacks. That makes it the worse terrorist attack there has been on British citizens since the second world war.' Other government sources suggested the figure of British dead might be as high as 500. In fact, the number is now put at 80, as Tessa Jowell, the Culture Secretary, revealed during a visit to New York on 28 October. This tally probably includes dual nationals and some with family ties to Britain. The number of British citizens who died may be 58.
These figures are still appallingly high. But if it turns out that between 3.000 and 4,000 people died in the attack on the World Trade Center, rather than the 6,000 to 7,000 originally feared, this is in a peculiar way wonderful news. We should feel joy that so many fewer British people died than was originally thought. Yet these adjusted figures are barely mentioned by the British press. The only reference I have come across was in an article by Philip Delves Broughton in the Daily Telegraph on 27 October. Buried deep in his report was the remarkable piece of information that 'unofficial tallies made by American media organisations put the total [of World Trade Center victims] between 2,600 and 2,900. Many are now suggesting that the widely touted number of 10,000 children who lost a parent is also exaggerated.' Mr Delves Broughton's article was exceptional, and most newspapers continue to cite the old figure of 6,000 plus, notwithstanding the fact that it is significantly higher than the latest official estimate. Even opponents of the allied action in Afghanistan, who might be thought to have an interest in getting the figures in their correct proportions, rarely do so. The Independent's Robert Fisk, a diehard critic of the United States, cheerfully accepted the figure of 6,000 in an article published on 23 October.
Government ministers, as well as leading American politicians, continue to spout the superannuated figures. Paul Wolfowitz, the American deputy defense secretary, suggested in an interview in this week's Sunday Telegraph that the overall number of victims might be as high as 7,000 — a figure which he must know is implausible. Robin Cook, the Leader of the House, blithely trotted out the familiar figure of 6,000 in an interview on the Today programme on Tuesday morning. Interestingly, Mr Blair was more circumspect in the speech he delivered to the Welsh Assembly on the same day, referring only to the 'thousands' who had been killed.
The question we have to consider is this: is there any significance in the apparent disinclination of some journalists and politicians to disseminate the adjusted figures? We all know that the media are in the inflation business when it conies to death. The greater the number, the bigger the story. Many newspapers were too ready to entertain suggestions that well over a hundred people had died in the Paddington rail crash; the final figure was 31. We can all think of other examples. Although there is absolutely no evidence that the media have deliberately inflated figures in this case, there has perhaps been an instinctive reluctance to accept revised numbers because they might have the effect of making a cataclysmic story appear marginally less cataclysmic.
But there is more to it than that. During the Kosovo war some government ministers suggested that as many as 10,000 Kosovar Albanians had been butchered by Serbs after the beginning of Nato's bombardment. Neither that figure, nor anything like it, has ever been substantiated. It seems to have been drawn out of thin air, the purpose being to demonise our adversaries. In the case of the World Trade Center, ministers were obviously not responsible for the original figures which, as it has turned out, were too high in general, and much too high in respect of British victims. But I think they have been slow to accept the lower numbers for fear that these might subtly undermine the case for action against Afghanistan. There is a brutal calculus: the greater the number of victims, the easier it is to justify military action. This may explain why the pro-war press is not bandying about these new figures either. Conscious or unconscious, there is a kind of cover-up. Surely it is better to be open — or we may begin to feel that we are being manipulated. After all, the murder of 3,000 to 4,000 people. 80 of them Britons, remains a very dreadful thing.
Previous page
