|
MEDIA: Trumpet enemy crimes (Tiananmen),
hide your own
09Jun05 NDF Tiananmen
remembered, but vaster US crimes are suppressed
On 08Jun05, George wrote to New
Diaspora Forum::
> I remember this day 16 years ago. I do not know how many
students/demonstrators were killed in
> Tiananmen square by Chinese troops. The estimate is at least 3,000.
> Every year I recall this day of terrible human injustice. Every day some
atrocity should be recalled.
According to Wikepedia, on May 4, 1989 abour 100,000 students matched in Beijing
demanding democratic reforms. On May 20, the government declared marital law but
the demos continued.
The PLA was ordered to restore order and on June 3 & 4, the army opened fire.
As for casualties, figures
vary:
- 400-800 (NY Times), 1000 (NSA), 2600 (Chinese Red Cross).
The protestors maintain many more thousands were killed.
The point is: the massacre was a godsend for the western propaganda machine.
China is an official enemy and the atrocity was seized by the western media to
tell the world about the brutality of the Chinese communist regime. And every
year, this media with its global reach (and owned by a few giant corporations)
tirelessly keeps reminding us of this terrible event.
W media plays down or suppress news on W
state crimes
But at least the Chinese killed their
own. The US specialises in killing others.
How many remember the far
graver mass killings carried out by the US in 1991 against Iraq in a most
cowardly fashion? Or earlier in Nicaragua or El Salvador or Panama?
The simple answer is that most
of us who feed on the western media are no reminded of western crimes. This
media systematically play down or suppress crimes committed by their own states
(mainly the US). The western states and the compliant media (NY Times, CNN, ABC,
BBC, etc etc) and the state have a cosy nexus between them. They belong to the
same elite class with shared common interests.
So shouldn't the Third World media jog our memories about western
misdemeanors?
The major Indian media probably
went along with the West and reminded their readers of the Tiananmen anniversary
but sadly they seem too scared to publicise western crimes. More's the pity.
I guess you need to be sufficiently powerful to do that. China is.
China’s report on US human rights violations
The US has long been issuing
annual reports about Chinese human rights abuses. This year, the Chinese foreign
ministry turned the tables and issued its own report on US human rights
violations.
The highlights:
"American society is characterized by rampant violent
crimes, severe infringement of people's rights by law enforcement departments
and lack of guarantee of the right to life, liberty and security. America holds
the
record (two million) among prison inmates, and three times that many are on
parole or probation. Some 31,000 Americans were killed annually by firearms.
"American democracy is manipulated by the rich and malpractice is common,
elections in the U.S. are in fact a contest of money.
"Hunger and homelessness haunt the world's richest country. Racial
discrimination permeates every aspect of society, while the new post 9-11
homeland security regulations especially target ethnic minorities,
foreigners and immigrants.
"The rate of rapes and sexual abuse is deplorable, with some 400,000 children
forced into prostitution and sexual abuse. There are the scandalous violations
of the rights of prisoners of war, there is a history of
invasions and unprovoked military assaults on other nations, an estimated
100,000 civilians have died in Iraq..."
-----------------------------------------
But how many have heard of the Chinese report?
If you didn't, it was probably because it was kept out of the paper you
read.
MediaLens
Alert: (Sept 26, 2002) noted the following account
from the Observer of "Two years of bloodshed" in the Middle East
is indeed awesome.
28 Sept 2000:
Ariel Sharon visits Temple Mount area of Jerusalem, sparking clashes that begin
intifada
12 Oct, 2000: Israel sends in helicopter gunships after two soldiers lynched in
Ramallah
2 Nov, 2000: Two Israelis killed by bomb, scuppering ceasefire
18 May 01: Israeli planes bomb occupied territories for first time since
1967
1 June 01: Suicide attack on a Tel Aviv nightclub kills 21
12 Mar 02: 20,000 Israeli troops invade refugee camps in the Gaza Strip
27 Mar 02: Suicide bomber kills 28 in Netanya
29 Mar 02: Arafat's Ramallah compound attacked
31 July 02: Seven die in explosion at university in Jerusalem
14 Aug 02: Israeli tanks move into Jenin
18 Sept 02: Suicide attacks resume after six week lull
(The Observer, September 22, 2002)
Notice that there is no mention of any Palestinian
deaths in this list: a suicide bomber "kills" in Natanya but Israeli
tanks merely "move in" to Jenin. It is possible to fill in some of the gaps
with the help
of The Israeli Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, established
in 1989 by a group of prominent academics, attorneys, journalists, and Knesset
members. Surely at least some of the following figures for Palestinian dead
should be added alongside the numbers of Israeli victims:
Sept 2000: 15 killed; Oct 2000: 101 killed; Nov 2000: 110 killed
May 01: 45 killed; June 01: 13 killed; Mar 02: 239 killed
April 02: 136 killed; July 02: 37 killed
The Golden Rule of media
reporting:
- overlook the horrors
committed by the West and its allies.
In the
updated intro to their book Manufacturing
Consent, Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky analyse the number of times the word
'genocide' has been used in the mainstream media.
[A Nexis database search was used]
In 1998-1999 the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Washington Post,
Newsweek and Time used 'genocide' 220 times to describe the actions
of Serbia (a Western enemy) in Kosovo. It is estimated that some 3,000
people were killed on all sides in that conflict over that period.
In 1990-1999 the same media
used the word 33 times to describe the actions of Indonesia (a Western ally) in
East Timor. Since Indonesia invaded in 1975, some 200,000 East Timorese,
or one third of the population, are estimated to have been killed in one of
history's worst bloodbaths.
In 1990-1999 the word was used
132 times for the actions of Iraq (a Western enemy) against Kurds.
In 1990-1999 the word was used
14 times for the actions of Turkey (a Western ally) against Kurds.
In 1991-1999 the word was used
in connection with Western sanctions against Iraq 18 times, despite the
resignation of senior UN diplomats describing the sanctions as "genocidal".
Herman and Chomsky summarise:
"The table shows that the five major print media surveyed engage in a similar
biased usage, frequently using 'genocide' to describe victimization in the enemy
states, but applying the word far less frequently to equally severe
victimization carried out by the United States or its allies and clients. We can
even read who are U.S. friends and enemies from the media's use of the word."
(Herman to Media Lens, August 27, 2002)
For similar reasons, in the current debate on Iraq, there has been almost
literally no mention of the 100,000 Iraqis estimated
to have died during, and in the immediate aftermath of, the Gulf War.
There has also been almost no mention of the 1
million Iraqi civilians estimated to have died as a result of subsequent
sanctions. By contrast mentions of the Iraqis' use of poison gas at
Halabja abound. There have been rare mentions of the fact that in 1998 UN arms
inspectors were +not+ "thrown out" by Iraq (Jane Corbin, Panorama, BBC1,
September 23, 2002) as the media consistently claim, but were in fact withdrawn
after revelations that the inspectors had been infiltrated by CIA spies (who
subsequently used the information gained to attack Iraqi targets in Operation
Desert Fox). The hypocrisy is remarkable given that the media +did+ report the
spying at the time. Thus according to the Washington Post in 1999 the US
"infiltrated agents and espionage equipment for three years into United Nations
arms control teams in Iraq to eavesdrop on the Iraqi military without the
knowledge of the U.N. agency". (March 2, 1999)
Undercover U.S. agents "carried out an ambitious spying operation designed to
penetrate Iraq's intelligence apparatus and track the movement of Iraqi leader
Saddam Hussein, according to U.S. and U.N. sources," the Boston Globe reported.
(January 6, 1999. Quoted, FAIR, 'Spying In Iraq: From Fact To
Allegation', September 24, 2002)
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR:
www.fair.org) note the change in media performance:
"Now that the Bush administration has placed the inspectors at the center of
its rationale for going to war, these same papers have become noticeably uneasy
about recalling UNSCOM's past spying... Suddenly, facts that their own
correspondents confirmed three years ago in interviews with top U.S. officials
are being recycled as mere allegations coming from Saddam Hussein's regime."
(Ibid)
To take another example at random, in a review of press reporting on Iran under
the Shah (a Western ally installed by the US/UK), William A. Dorman and Ehsan
Omad wrote:
"We have been unable to find a single example of a news and feature story in
the American mainstream press that uses the label 'dictator'." (Dorman and
Omad, 'Reporting Iran the Shah's Way', Columbia Journalism Review,
January-February 1979)
ITV's current documentary series 'The British Empire in Colour' recently
described how between 1948 and 1960 the British army thwarted an "attempted
Communist takeover of Malaya", and thereby risked becoming "embroiled in the
Cold War". (ITV, September 22, 2002) As many as 45,000 troops were mobilised to
fight "Communist terrorists", we were told. Britain was "determined not to let
Malaya fall into Communist hands". This was the official propaganda version at
the time. In the real world, four years after the emergency, the British
Colonial Office admitted: "No operational links have been established as
existing" between Malaya and Soviet or Chinese communists. No material
support had been offered. (Quoted, Mark Curtis, The Ambiguities of Power,
Zed Books, 1995, p.58).
The insurgency was nationalist in nature, rooted in the disaffected Chinese
community, which constituted 45% of the population. Forced out of employment
during the Japanese occupation during world war two, these Chinese "squatters"
had been forced to scratch out a living in the jungle.
Desperation turned to resistance when the British colonial authorities failed to
guarantee their rights, threatening to strip them of citizenship. Malaya was in
fact recognised by the British establishment as the "greatest material prize
in South-East Asia". (House of Lords debate, 1952, ibid, p.57) In secret the
Foreign Office admitted that the war "is very much a war in defence of [the]
rubber industry". (Quoted, ibid, p.58)
In similar vein, in a Channel 4 documentary, 'Model Empire' (September 21,
2002), Guardian journalist Jonathan Freedland promised to draw comparisons
between two other empires - the ancient empire of Rome and the modern empire of
the United States. We at Media Lens were intrigued to see how Freedland
would negotiate this comparison, given The Golden Rule of media omissions, and
given the grisly nature of the Roman Empire with which the US was to be
compared. Writing in the 1930s, anarchist historian Rudolf Rocker gave an idea
of the extraordinary depravity under discussion:
"The whole history of Roman rule was a long chain of frightful horrors.
Treason, assassination, beastly cruelty, crazy confusion of ideas and morbid
greed prevailed in tottering Rome. The rich gave themselves over to the most
excessive indulgence and the poor knew no other desire than to be able to
participate, ever so modestly, in that indulgence. A little gang of monopolists
ruled the realm and organised the exploitation of the world according to
well-established principles." (Rocker, Culture and Nationalism,
Michael E. Coughlan, 1978, p.406)
To his credit, Freedland outlined some of the horrors of Roman rule. So how does
the modern empire of the United States compare with this monstrosity? Freedland
drew many comparisons: both Rome and the US have promoted a cult of personality
of the leader, seeking to mythologise the legitimacy of empire in founding
myths. Both have waged battles for hearts and minds, as well as military
battles, and have sought to assimilate, rather than merely destroy, opposing
cultures - both "hard imperialism" (military alliances and war) and "soft
imperialism" (culture and commerce) have been pursued. Both have understood that
to be a global empire requires that an empire lead in all areas of technology
and appears unassailable and ruthless.
These were interesting comparisons, to be sure. But what about comparisons with
the Roman genocides, the "naked power", the vicious emperors, the imperial
brutality and contempt for human rights? The answer is that, here, Freedland
fell silent in his eager drawing of comparisons, saying not one word about them.
There was no mention of the 2 million Vietnamese dead, in a war that, like
Malaya, had nothing to do with resisting Communism but was actually against
Vietnamese nationalism and for "tin, rubber, oil". (Howard
Zinn, You Can't Be Neutral On A Moving Train, Beacon Press, 1994, p.155).
There was no mention of the fact that US military and economic aid "has tended
to flow disproportionately to Latin American governments which torture their
citizens... to the hemisphere's relatively egregious violators
of fundamental human rights", according to Lars Schoultz, the leading academic
scholar on human rights in Latin America. (Quoted, Noam Chomsky, Year 501 - The
Conquest Continues, Verso, 1993, p.120))
There was no mention of any of this in Freedland's film, or of horrors committed
in Greece, Iran, Indonesia, Guatemala, Colombia, Nicaragua, Chile, and on and
on... Other unmentioned comparisons between ancient Rome and the present day
were brought to mind by Freedland's film. Rocker points in the general
direction:
"No other literature... is so filled with the most disgusting flattery of the
great ones of the earth as is the Roman. In no other does the spirit of
servility and boot-licking display itself so openly and shamelessly. There never
was a time in which poet and artist rolled so deeply in the dust..." (Rocker,
pp.390-2)
For those unwilling to role deeply in the dust - John Pilger, for example -
there is a price to be paid. Last week, The Guardian reported that
Michael Green, chairman of Carlton Communications, had "disowned" John Pilger's
recent documentary, 'Palestine Is Still the Issue',
made and transmitted by Green's own company. Green was reported as saying: "It
was one-sided, it was totally unrealistic, but it was John Pilger ... it was
factually incorrect, historically incorrect. There's no doubt in my mind that
this programme is a tragedy for Israel so far as accuracy is concerned."
(Stephen Bates, 'TV chief
attacks 'one-sided' Palestinian documentary', Guardian, Sept 20, 2002)
The Guardian reported that the film was also condemned as one-sided by
the Israeli embassy, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and Conservative
Friends of Israel. This is called 'flak'. In Manufacturing Consent,
Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky describe the reality and effects of flak:
"Flak refers to negative responses to a media statement or programme. It
may take the form of letters, telegrams, phone calls, petitions, lawsuits,
speeches and bills before Congress, and other modes of complaint, threat, and
punitive action... If flak is produced on a large scale, or by individuals or
groups with substantial resources, it can be both uncomfortable and costly to
the media... The ability to produce flak, and especially flak that is costly and
threatening, is related to power."
(Herman and Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent, Pantheon, 1988, p.26)
Flak is an important factor in ensuring that The Golden Rule of silence on
crimes committed by the West and its allies is observed. Because of these
omissions, Western propagandists need merely open the flood gates on information
relating to the crimes of a Saddam Hussein, a Milosevic, or a Qadafi, to
generate public support for yet another "humanitarian intervention" by Western
moralists. If the public knew that we are ourselves responsible for far worse
horrors, the grand moral claims of our leaders would be subjected to far more
scepticism than is currently the case. Thanks to the media the public can be
persuaded that we are both morally qualified and motivated to use violence to
put an end to violence.
This is why the media bears such a terrible responsibility for the great Western
militarist campaigns that have killed literally millions of people around the
world over the last sixty years. Beyond the smart suits and
made-over sophistication, this is the reality of media responsibility for mass
death. Writing a century ago, the great American writer
Mark Twain perfectly described both the appearance and
the reality of modern politics:
"I bring you the stately matron named
Christendom, returning bedraggled, besmirched and dishonoured from pirate-raids
in Kiao-Chou, Manchuria, South Africa and the Philippines, with her soul full of
meanness, her pocket full of boodle and her mouth full of pious hypocrisies.
Give her the soap and a towel, but hide the looking-glass."(Quoted,
Norman Solomon, 'The Twain That Most Americans Never Meet', ZNet 19Nov99
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|