Pot calling the kettle black - playing infinite games
is coming over the (barbed) wires that only senior Khmers Rouges
are now likely to stand trial for alleged 'crimes against humanity'
during the revolutionary sequence 1975-79. The 'genocide' of 1.7
million people in the former DK is no doubt going to generate a
pile of paperwork. Human rights activists are cock-a-hoop, and insisting
on a tribunal under the jurisdiction of the UN, rather than a Cambodia-led
rights activists are going to have their work cut out, for if 'justice
at The Hague' (as nonsensical as 'sobriety in Cardiff') is now going
to be parcelled out retrospectively then we might as well get the
fucking beers in right now - izgonnabeonehelluvalongnight!
down 'war crimes' these days is like counting sheep. How long's
a piece of string? (actually, according to Georg Cantor, the answer
is equal to the difference between aleph 0 and aleph 1).
Of course, this infinite game leads nowhere, and is - even Bushwhacker
knows it - played for the sole purpose of preventing the game from
coming to an end. As long as there is injustice in the world, inquests
will be set up. And as long as the game is infinite, questions of
who plays and who doesn't, of who's subject to the rules of the
game and who isn't, are meaningless.
only criterion in an infinite game is that there are no preconditions
- anyone who wants to play can, and vice-versa (this is one thing
'war criminals' and the UN agree on: an infinite game isn't a James
Bond narrative - although anyone who's been watching ITV recently
might be forgiven for thinking it is).
it comes as no surprise that the US, whose B-52s killed 2 million
people in carpet-bombing raids during the Korean war, has curtailed
the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over US citizens.
The point is: it doesn't matter. Indeed, this is the shrewdest of
moves for an infinite gamer: not only can the rules of an infinite
game be changed during the course of the game, they must be. After
all, this absolutely guarantees that no-one can win, that justice
cannot prevail, that justice lies in putting off justice for good.
is precisely why the UN, in backing this meaningless 'prosecution'
of 'criminality' - what's the difference between an alleged criminal
and a non-criminal in an infinite game then? - is consolidating
the logic of US imperialism: the game in which no holds are barred,
or whose limits are part of the game.
what about the Khmers Rouges? Where does this leave 'justice' in
the name of the 1.7 million dead, the prosecution of those responsible
for this degeneration from feudalism to Neolithic paganism? Let's
not even go there. From Serbia to Liberia, Peru to Zimbabwe, our
muck-raking media pisses on our backs and tells us it's raining.
The Fourth Estate? More like the fucking Estates General! The discourse
on human rights is fast becoming a new religion for consumer bunnies
- give us a discount and save the children. What people can't understand
in a zillion years is that The Khmers Rouges simply weren't playing
an infinite game, but a finite one. Or rather a finite game within
an infinite game.
games have rules: Democratic Kampuchea is now a people's state.
Rules, not laws. Rules don't determine how people act, they simply
set conditions which constrain the freedom of the players, allowing
room for manoeuvre within prescribed limits. The game is not defined
by its rules. Only when we know what the rules are do we fully understand
what the game is. Or how long it lasts. Or when to stop the game,
assuming we're playing within an infinite time-frame, in order to
redraw the rules. This is the only way we can ever decide who has