From hmccubbin at tinyworld.co.uk Sun Feb 2 12:44:06 2003 From: hmccubbin at tinyworld.co.uk (Henry McCubbin) Date: Thu Apr 1 12:43:28 2004 Subject: [Media-watch] Fw: Facing the Unthinkable - Challenging Bush on the Gassing of Kurds Message-ID: <001001c2cab7$7e888fa0$d2d886d9@HenryMcCubbin>   ----- Original Message ----- From: Joseph Gerson To: hmccubbin@tinyworld.co.uk Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 7:36 PM Subject: Facing the Unthinkable - Challenging Bush on the Gassing of Kurds .pub { FONT: bold 17px arial, sans-serif; COLOR: #006666 } .head { FONT: bold 15px arial, sans-serif; COLOR: #b00000 } .subhead { FONT: bold 13px arial, sans-serif; COLOR: #006666 } .body { FONT: 11px/140% verdana, sans-serif; COLOR: #000000 } .cta { FONT: 11px verdana, sans-serif; COLOR: #006666 } .foot { FONT: 10px arial, sans-serif; COLOR: #000000 } .edit { FONT: 10px/180% arial, sans-serif; COLOR: green } .bullet { FONT: bold 11px verdana, sans-serif; COLOR: #006666 } .issue { FONT: 11px verdana, sans-serif; COLOR: #b00000 }
In This Issue:
 •  Facing the Unthinkable - Challening Bush on Gassing of Kurds Facing the Unthinkable - Challening Bush on Gassing of Kurds 2/1First, two corrections from yesterday’s events posting:1) UJP Buses to New York on February 15 cost $30, not $40.2) Robert Fiske’s February 5 talk at MIT on will be at Wednesday, February 5th7:00 PM, MIT, Room 10-250Overflow room 34-101Friends,The following article by Stephen C. Pelletier, formerly the CIA’s senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War and professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, speaks for itself. Written by an absolutely credible source, in the tradition of Daniel Ellsberg’s revelations about the U.S. war in Vietnam, and confirming a charge made by Scott Ritter, it points to what may be a profound lie at the heart of the Bush Administration’s efforts to mobilize the U.S. public and the world for its catastrophic war against Iraq - that Saddam Hussein’s government may not have gassed its own people. It may well have been the Iranians. In what is likely to be the last critical weeks to avert this war, Pelletiere‘s report should be circulated as widely as possibleIt may be possible that President Bush has, to his mind, already decided upon war. This leads me to two thoughts. First, we must do all that we can in the coming weeks to avert it, and this includes encouraging as many people as possible to join the February 15 demonstration in New York or in our home communities, and picking up those phones on Monday and moving those e-mail along, to press your senators and Senators Frist and Daschle to support and to allow debate on SR 32. It is worth recalling that in 1969, when 200,000 people journeyed to Washington, D.C. to oppose the Vietnam War, we didn’t know that a nuclear threat had been communicated to the Vietnamese and that the U.S. military was at the highest state of nuclear alert. President Nixon’s memoirs tell us that it was when he learned the numbers who had come to protest that he concluded he could not follow through on his November ultimatum.* Even as we do all that we can to prevent the war, we should also be preparing our responses to it. I’ll post more about this in the coming days, but such preparations should include more than "The Day(s) After" community and state-wide demonstrations and civil disobedience, although they are ESSENTIAL. I think it also means steadfastness on our part, holding the public space and imagination. Among the ways that this can be done is through the wearing of black arm bands to communicate mourning for the Iraqi people, our troops, for the costs to our communities in the near and long-term, and for the erosion of democracy and human rights here in the U.S. It will also serve to counter whatever this Administration’s version of the 1991 yellow ribbon campaign will be. It also means movement offices being organized to respond before the unthinkable happens and having our office volunteers and communications networks in place. It means having our media strategies in place, and it includes religious and other commu nities thinking in advance about how you will respond as communities. And the list goes on…Driving back from Connecticut this afternoon I learned of the loss of the Colombia and, worse its crew of nine. This, as we know, is a terrible tragedy for these people and a loss beyond words for their families and friends. Even as we know that these missions are related to the monopolization of the militarization of space and come at enormous costs in essential human services not provided to our communities, we understand that this is death. As we move into this period of national mourning, let us not fail to remember that our government and nation are preparing to kill tens of thousands of people - if not more. Let us feel the preciousness of their lives and of their families while they are still living. Let us do all that we can to preserve their lives and psyches and those of our soldiers, by preventing this totally avoidable war.For life, peace and justice,Joseph Gerson*For more information on Nixon’s ultimatum and the way we stayed his nuclear hand, see chapter 5 of "With Hiroshima Eyes: Atomic War, Nuclear Extortion and Moral Imagination" by yours truly.A War Crime or an Act of War?New York Times, January 31, 2003By STEPHEN C. PELLETIEREMECHANICSBURG, Pa. — It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story. I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target. And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas. The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time. These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran. I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them. In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has bearing on today might want to consider a different question: Why was Iran so keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on America's impetus to invade Iraq. We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and Euphrates, there are the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the north of the country. Iraq was covered with irrigation works by the sixth century A.D., and was a granary for the region.Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming to take control of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990's there was much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress has been made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could change. Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that probably could not be challenged for decades — not solely by controlling Iraq's oil, but by controlling its water. Even if America didn't occupy the country, once Mr. Hussein's Baath Party is driven from power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American companies. All that is needed to get us into war is one clear reason for acting, one that would be generally persuasive. But efforts to link the Iraqis directly to Osama bin Laden have proved inconclusive. Assertions that Iraq threatens its neighbors have also failed to create much resolve; in its present debilitated condition — thanks to United Nations sanctions — Iraq's conventional forces threaten no one. Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his people. And the most dramatic case are the accusations about Halabja. Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports? Stephen C. Pelletiere is author of "Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Persian Gulf."
Update your profile or unsubscribe here. Delivered by Topica Email Publisher From sean at nor-cote.co.uk Mon Feb 3 17:54:14 2003 From: sean at nor-cote.co.uk (Sean McKerrell) Date: Thu Apr 1 12:43:29 2004 Subject: [Media-watch] (no subject) Message-ID: <13E03B84A5CEA242B386D9E0FACE059306CD30@server.ad.nor-cote.co.uk> Why a war against Iraq is unnecessary Jan 31 John J Mearsheimer and Stephen M Walt If the US soon goes to war with Iraq, the immediate cause is likely to be Saddam Hussein's failure to comply with the new UN inspections regime to the satisfaction of the Bush administration. But this failure is not the real reason Hussein and the US have been on a collision course for the past year. The deeper root of the conflict is the US position that Hussein must be toppled because he cannot be deterred from using weapons of mass destruction. Advocates of preventive war use numerous arguments to make their case, but their trump card is the charge that Hussein's past behaviour proves he is too reckless, relentless and aggressive to be allowed to possess WMD, especially nuclear weapons. They sometimes admit that war against Iraq might be costly, might lead to a lengthy US occupation and might complicate US relations with other countries. But these concerns are eclipsed by the belief that the combination of Hussein plus nuclear weapons is too dangerous to accept. For that reason alone, he has to go. Even many opponents of preventive war seem to agree deterrence will not work in Iraq. Instead of invading Iraq and overthrowing the regime, however, these moderates favour using the threat of war to compel Hussein to permit new weapons inspections. Their hope is that inspections will eliminate any hidden WMD stockpiles and production facilities and ensure Hussein cannot acquire any of these deadly weapons. Thus, both the hard-line, preventive-war advocates and the more moderate supporters of inspections accept the same basic premise: Hussein is not deterrable, and he cannot be allowed to obtain a nuclear arsenal. There is one problem with this argument: It is almost certainly wrong. The belief that Hussein's past behaviour shows he cannot be contained rests on distorted history and faulty logic. In fact, the historical record shows that the US can contain Iraq effectively - even if Hussein has nuclear weapons - just as it contained the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Regardless of whether Iraq complies with UN inspections or what the inspectors find, the campaign to wage war against Iraq rests on a flimsy foundation. Those who call for preventive war begin by portraying Hussein as a serial aggressor bent on dominating the Persian Gulf. The war party also contends that Hussein is either irrational or prone to serious miscalculation, which means he may not be deterred by even credible threats of retaliation. Kenneth Pollack, former director for gulf affairs at the US National Security Council and a proponent of war with Iraq, goes so far as to argue that Hussein is "unintentionally suicidal". The facts, however, tell a different story. Hussein has dominated Iraqi politics for more than 30 years. During that period, he started two wars against his neighbours - Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. Hussein's record in this regard is no worse than that of neighbouring states such as Egypt or Israel, each of which played a role in starting several wars since 1948. Furthermore, a careful look at Hussein's two wars shows his behaviour was far from reckless. Both times, he attacked because Iraq was vulnerable and because he believed his targets were weak and isolated. In each case, his goal was to rectify Iraq's strategic dilemma with a limited military victory. Such reasoning does not excuse Hussein's aggression, but his willingness to use force on these occasions hardly demonstrates that he cannot be deterred. The Iran-Iraq War, 1980-88 Iran was the most powerful state in the Persian Gulf in the 1970s. Its strength was partly due to its large population (roughly three times that of Iraq) and its oil reserves, but it also stemmed from the strong support the shah of Iran received from the US. Relations between Iraq and Iran were quite hostile throughout this period, but Iraq was in no position to defy Iran's regional dominance. Iran put constant pressure on Hussein's regime in the early 1970s, mostly by fomenting unrest among Iraq's sizeable Kurdish minority. Iraq finally persuaded the shah to stop meddling with the Kurds in 1975, but only by agreeing to cede half of the Shatt al-Arab waterway to Iran, a concession that underscored Iraq's weakness. It is thus not surprising that Hussein welcomed the shah's ouster in 1979. Iraq went to considerable lengths to foster good relations with Iran's revolutionary leadership. Hussein did not exploit the turmoil in Iran to gain strategic advantage over his neighbour and made no attempt to reverse his earlier concessions, even though Iran did not fully comply with the terms of the 1975 agreement. Ruhollah Khomeini, on the other hand, was determined to extend his revolution across the Islamic world, starting with Iraq. By late 1979, Tehran was pushing the Kurdish and Shiite populations in Iraq to revolt and topple Hussein, and Iranian operatives were trying to assassinate senior Iraqi officials. Border clashes became increasingly frequent by April 1980, largely at Iran's instigation. Facing a grave threat to his regime, but aware that Iran's military readiness had been temporarily disrupted by the revolution, Hussein launched a limited war against his bitter foe on September 22, 1980. His principal aim was to capture a large slice of territory along the Iraq-Iran border, not to conquer Iran or topple Khomeini. "The war began," as military analyst Efraim Karsh writes, "because the weaker state, Iraq, attempted to resist the hegemonic aspirations of its stronger neighbour, Iran, to reshape the regional status quo according to its own image." Iran and Iraq fought for eight years, and the war cost the two antagonists more than one million casualties and at least $US150 billion. Iraq received considerable outside support from other countries - including the US, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and France - largely because these states were determined to prevent the spread of Khomeini's Islamic revolution. Although the war cost Iraq far more than Saddam expected, it also thwarted Khomeini's attempt to topple him and dominate the region. War with Iran was not a reckless adventure; it was an opportunistic response to a significant threat. The Gulf War, 1990-91 But what about Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in August 1990? Perhaps the earlier war with Iran was essentially defensive, but surely this was not true in the case of Kuwait. Doesn't Hussein's decision to invade his tiny neighbour prove he is too rash and aggressive to be trusted with the most destructive weaponry? And doesn't his refusal to withdraw, even when confronted by a superior coalition, demonstrate that he is "unintentionally suicidal"? The answer is no. Once again, a careful look shows Hussein was neither mindlessly aggressive nor particularly reckless. If anything, the evidence supports the opposite conclusion. Hussein's decision to invade Kuwait was primarily an attempt to deal with Iraq's continued vulnerability. Iraq's economy, badly damaged by its war with Iran, continued to decline after that war ended. An important cause of Iraq's difficulties was Kuwait's refusal both to lend Iraq $US10 billion and to write off debts Iraq had incurred during the Iran-Iraq War. Hussein believed Iraq was entitled to additional aid because the country helped protect Kuwait and other Gulf states from Iranian expansionism. To make matters worse, Kuwait was exceeding the quotas set by the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which drove down world oil prices and reduced Iraqi oil profits. Hussein tried using diplomacy to solve the problem, but Kuwait hardly budged. As Karsh and fellow Hussein biographer Inari Rautsi note, the Kuwaitis "suspected that some concessions might be necessary, but were determined to reduce them to the barest minimum". Hussein reportedly decided on war sometime in July 1990, but before sending his army into Kuwait, he approached the US to find out how it would react. In a now famous interview with the Iraqi leader, US ambassador April Glaspie told Hussein, "[W]e have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." The US State Department had earlier told Hussein that Washington had "no special defence or security commitments to Kuwait". The US may not have intended to give Iraq a green light, but that is effectively what it did. Hussein invaded Kuwait in early August 1990. This act was an obvious violation of international law, and the US was justified in opposing the invasion and organising a coalition against it. But Hussein's decision to invade was hardly irrational or reckless. Deterrence did not fail in this case; it was never tried. But what about Hussein's failure to leave Kuwait once the US demanded a return to the status quo ante? Wouldn't a prudent leader have abandoned Kuwait before getting clobbered? With hindsight, the answer seems obvious, but Hussein had good reasons to believe hanging tough might work. It was not initially apparent that the US would actually fight, and most Western military experts predicted the Iraqi army would mount a formidable defence. These forecasts seem foolish today, but many people believed them before the war began. Once the US air campaign had seriously damaged Iraq's armed forces, however, Hussein began searching for a diplomatic solution that would allow him to retreat from Kuwait before a ground war began. Indeed, Hussein made clear he was willing to pull out completely. Instead of allowing Iraq to withdraw and fight another day, then US president George HW Bush and his administration wisely insisted the Iraqi army leave its equipment behind as it withdrew. As the administration had hoped, Hussein could not accept this kind of deal. Hussein undoubtedly miscalculated when he attacked Kuwait, but the history of warfare is full of cases where leaders have misjudged the prospects for war. Yet no evidence suggests Hussein did not weigh his options carefully. He chose to use force because he was facing a serious challenge and because he had good reasons to think his invasion would not provoke serious opposition. Nor should anyone forget that the Iraqi tyrant survived the Kuwait debacle, just as he has survived other threats against his regime. He is now beginning his fourth decade in power. If he is really "unintentionally suicidal", then his survival instincts appear to be even more finely honed. History provides at least two more pieces of evidence that demonstrate Hussein is deterrable. First, although he launched conventionally armed Scud missiles at Saudi Arabia and Israel in the Gulf War, he did not launch chemical or biological weapons at the coalition forces that were decimating the Iraqi military. Moreover, senior Iraqi officials - including deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz and the former head of military intelligence Wafiq al-Samarrai - have said that Iraq refrained from using chemical weapons because the administration of Bush snr had made ambiguous but unmistakable threats to retaliate if Iraq used WMD. Second, in 1994 Iraq mobilised the remnants of its army on the Kuwaiti border in an apparent attempt to force a modification of the UN Special Commission's weapons inspection regime. But when the UN issued a new warning and the US reinforced its troops in Kuwait, Iraq backed down quickly. On both occasions, the allegedly irrational Iraqi leader was deterred. Chemical weapons Preventive-war advocates also use a second line of argument. They point out that Hussein has used WMD against his own people (the Kurds) and against Iran and that therefore he is likely to use them against the US. Thus, the present US president, George W Bush, recently warned in Cincinnati that the Iraqi WMD threat against the US "is already significant, and it only grows worse with time". The US, in other words, is in imminent danger. Hussein's record of chemical weapons use is deplorable, but none of his victims had a similar arsenal and thus could not threaten to respond in kind. Iraq's calculations would be entirely different when facing the US because Washington could retaliate with WMD if Iraq ever decided to use these weapons first. Hussein thus has no incentive to use chemical or nuclear weapons against the US and its allies - unless his survival is threatened. This simple logic explains why he did not use WMD against US forces during the Gulf War and has not fired chemical or biological warheads at Israel. Furthermore, if Hussein cannot be deterred, what is stopping him from using WMD against US forces in the Persian Gulf, which have bombed Iraq repeatedly over the past decade? The bottom line: Deterrence has worked well against Hussein in the past, and there is no reason to think it cannot work equally well in the future. President Bush's repeated claim that the threat from Iraq is growing makes little sense in light of Hussein's past record, and these statements should be viewed as transparent attempts to scare Americans into supporting a war. CIA director George Tenet flatly contradicted the president in an October 2002 letter to Congress, explaining that Hussein was unlikely to initiate a WMD attack against any US target unless Washington provoked him. Even if Iraq did acquire a larger WMD arsenal, the US would still retain a massive nuclear retaliatory capability. And if Hussein would use WMD only if the US threatened his regime, then one wonders why advocates of war are trying to do just that. Hawks do have a fallback position on this issue. Yes, the US can try to deter Hussein by threatening to retaliate with massive force. But this strategy may not work because Iraq's past use of chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iran shows that Saddam is a warped human being who might use WMD without regard for the consequences. Unfortunately for those who now favour war, this argument is difficult to reconcile with past US support for Iraq, support that coincided with some of the behaviour now being invoked to portray him as an irrational madman. The US backed Iraq during the 1980s - when Saddam was gassing Kurds and Iranians - and helped Iraq use chemical weapons more effectively by providing it with satellite imagery of Iranian troop positions. The Reagan administration also facilitated Iraq's efforts to develop biological weapons by allowing Baghdad to import disease-producing biological materials such as anthrax, West Nile virus and botulinal toxin. A central figure in the effort to court Iraq was none other than the present US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who was then Ronald Reagan's special envoy to the Middle East. He visited Baghdad and met with Hussein in 1983, with the explicit aim of fostering better relations between the US and Iraq. In October 1989, about a year after Hussein gassed the Kurds, Bush snr signed a formal national security directive declaring, "Normal relations between the US and Iraq would serve our longer-term interests and promote stability in both the Gulf and the Middle East." If Hussein's use of chemical weapons so clearly indicates he is a madman and cannot be contained, why did the US fail to see that in the 1980s? Why were Rumsfeld and Bush snr then so unconcerned about his chemical and biological weapons? The most likely answer is that US policy-makers correctly understood Hussein was unlikely to use those weapons against the US and its allies unless Washington threatened him directly. The real puzzle is why they think it would be impossible to deter him today. Nuclear weapons The third strike against a policy of containment, according to those who have called for war, is that such a policy is unlikely to stop Hussein from getting nuclear weapons. Once he gets them, so the argument runs, a host of really bad things will happen. For example, Bush has warned that Hussein intends to "blackmail the world"; likewise, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice believes that he would use nuclear weapons to "blackmail the entire international community". Others fear a nuclear arsenal would enable Iraq to invade its neighbours and then deter the US from ousting the Iraqi army as it did in 1991. Even worse, Hussein might surreptitiously slip a nuclear weapon to al-Qaeda or some like-minded terrorist organisation, and thereby make it possible for these groups to attack America directly. The administration and its supporters may be right in one sense: Containment may not be enough to prevent Iraq from acquiring nuclear weapons someday. Only the conquest and permanent occupation of Iraq could guarantee that. Yet the US can contain a nuclear Iraq, just as it contained the Soviet Union. None of the nightmare scenarios invoked by preventive-war advocates are likely to happen. Consider the claim that Hussein would employ nuclear blackmail against his adversaries. To force another state to make concessions, a blackmailer must make clear that he would use nuclear weapons against the target state if he does not get his way. But this strategy is feasible only if the blackmailer has nuclear weapons but neither the target state nor its allies do. If the blackmailer and the target state both have nuclear weapons, however, the blackmailer's threat is an empty one because the blackmailer cannot carry out the threat without triggering his own destruction. This logic explains why the Soviet Union, which had a vast nuclear arsenal for much of the Cold War, was never able to blackmail the US or its allies and did not even try. But what if Hussein invaded Kuwait again and then said he would use nuclear weapons if the US attempted another Desert Storm? Again, this threat is not credible. If Hussein initiated nuclear war against the US over Kuwait, he would bring US nuclear warheads down on his own head. Given the choice between withdrawing or dying, he would almost certainly choose the former. Thus, the US could wage Desert Storm II against a nuclear-armed Hussein without precipitating nuclear war. Ironically, some of the officials now advocating war used to recognise that Hussein could not employ nuclear weapons for offensive purposes. In the January-February 2000 issue of Foreign Affairs, for example, Rice described how the US should react if Iraq acquired WMD. "The first line of defence," she wrote, "should be a clear and classical statement of deterrence - if they do acquire WMD, their weapons will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration." If she believed Iraq's weapons would be unusable in 2000, why does she now think Hussein must be toppled before he gets them? For that matter, why does she now think a nuclear arsenal would enable Hussein to blackmail the entire international community, when she did not even mention this possibility in 2000? A nuclear hand-off Of course, now the real nightmare scenario is that Hussein would give nuclear weapons secretly to al-Qaeda or some other terrorist group. Groups like al-Qaeda would almost certainly try to use those weapons against Israel or the US, and so these countries have a powerful incentive to take all reasonable measures to keep these weapons out of their hands. However, the likelihood of clandestine transfer by Iraq is extremely small. First of all, there is no credible evidence that Iraq had anything to do with the terrorist attacks against the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon or more generally that Iraq is collaborating with al-Qaeda against the US. Hawks inside and outside the Bush administration have gone to extraordinary lengths over the past months to find a link, but they have come up empty-handed. The lack of evidence of any genuine connection between Hussein and al-Qaeda is not surprising because relations between Hussein and al-Qaeda have been quite poor in the past. Osama bin Laden is a radical fundamentalist (like Khomeini), and he detests secular leaders like Hussein. Similarly, Hussein has consistently repressed fundamentalist movements within Iraq. Given this history of enmity, the Iraqi dictator is unlikely to give al-Qaeda nuclear weapons, which it might use in ways he could not control. Intense US pressure, of course, might eventually force these unlikely allies together, just as the US and Communist Russia became allies in World War II. Hussein would still be unlikely to share his most valuable weaponry with al-Qaeda, however, because he could not be confident it would not be used in ways that place his own survival in jeopardy. During the Cold War, the US did not share all its WMD expertise with its own allies, and the Soviet Union baulked at giving nuclear weapons to China despite their ideological sympathies and repeated Chinese requests. No evidence suggests that Hussein would act differently. Second, Hussein could hardly be confident that the transfer would go undetected. Since September 11, US intelligence agencies and those of its allies have been riveted on al-Qaeda and Iraq, paying special attention to finding links between them. If Iraq possessed nuclear weapons, US monitoring of those two adversaries would be further intensified. To give nuclear materials to al-Qaeda, Hussein would have to bet he could elude the eyes and ears of numerous intelligence services determined to catch him if he tries a nuclear hand-off. This bet would not be a safe one. But even if Hussein thought he could covertly smuggle nuclear weapons to bin Laden, he would still be unlikely to do so. Hussein has been trying to acquire these weapons for over 20 years, at great cost and risk. Is it likely he would then turn around and give them away? Furthermore, giving nuclear weapons to al-Qaeda would be extremely risky for Hussein - even if he could do so without being detected - because he would lose all control over when and where they would be used. And Hussein could never be sure the US would not incinerate him anyway if it merely suspected he had made it possible for anyone to strike the US with nuclear weapons. The US government and a clear majority of Americans are already deeply suspicious of Iraq, and a nuclear attack against the US or its allies would raise that hostility to fever pitch. Hussein does not have to be certain the US would retaliate to be wary of giving his nuclear weapons to al-Qaeda; he merely has to suspect it might. In sum, Hussein cannot afford to guess wrong on whether he would be detected providing al-Qaeda with nuclear weapons, nor can he afford to guess wrong that Iraq would be spared if al-Qaeda launched a nuclear strike against the US or its allies. And the threat of US retaliation is not as far-fetched as one might think. The US has enhanced its flexible nuclear options in recent years, and no-one knows just how vengeful Americans might feel if WMD were ever used against the US homeland. Indeed, nuclear terrorism is as dangerous for Hussein as it is for Americans, and he has no more incentive to give al-Qaeda nuclear weapons than the US does - unless, of course, the US makes clear it is trying to overthrow him. Instead of attacking Iraq and giving Hussein nothing to lose, the Bush administration should be signalling it would hold him responsible if some terrorist group used WMD against the US, even if it cannot prove he is to blame. Vigilant containment It is not surprising that those who favour war with Iraq portray Hussein as an inveterate and only partly rational aggressor. They are in the business of selling a preventive war, so they must try to make remaining at peace seem unacceptably dangerous. And the best way to do that is to inflate the threat, either by exaggerating Iraq's capabilities or by suggesting horrible things will happen if the US does not act soon. It is equally unsurprising that advocates of war are willing to distort the historical record to make their case. As former US secretary of state Dean Acheson famously remarked, in politics, advocacy "must be clearer than truth". In this case, however, the truth points the other way. Both logic and historical evidence suggest a policy of vigilant containment would work, both now and in the event Iraq acquires a nuclear arsenal. Why? Because the US and its regional allies are far stronger than Iraq. And because it does not take a genius to figure out what would happen if Iraq tried to use WMD to blackmail its neighbours, expand its territory or attack another state directly. It only takes a leader who wants to stay alive and who wants to remain in power. Throughout his lengthy and brutal career, Hussein has repeatedly shown that these two goals are absolutely paramount. That is why deterrence and containment would work. If the US is soon at war with Iraq, Americans should understand that a compelling strategic rationale is absent. This war would be one the Bush administration chose to fight but did not have to fight. Even if such a war goes well and has positive long-range consequences, it will still have been unnecessary. And if it goes badly - whether in the form of high US casualties, significant civilian deaths, a heightened risk of terrorism, or increased hatred of the US in the Arab and Islamic world - then its architects will have even more to answer for. John J Mearsheimer is the R Wendell Harrison distinguished service professor of political science at the University of Chicago, where he codirects the program in international security policy. He is the author of The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (New York: WW Norton, 2001). Stephen M Walt is the academic dean and the Robert and Renee Belfer professor of international affairs at Harvard's John F Kennedy School of Government. He is faculty chair of the international security program at the Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs and is writing a book on global responses to American primacy. Reprinted with permission from Foreign Policy, Issue No134 ©Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. From david.miller at stir.ac.uk Fri Feb 7 09:32:10 2003 From: david.miller at stir.ac.uk (David Miller) Date: Thu Apr 1 12:43:29 2004 Subject: [Media-watch] FW:UK war dossier a sham, say experts Message-ID: <570E2BEE7BC5A34684EE5914FCFC368C0209B5D5@fillan.stir.ac.uk> Fromn today's Guardian: That UK report praised by Powell in his speech. The one with all the intelligence data about Iraq. Turns out is was a cut and paste job from stuff on the web. Plagiarized. From The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,890916,00.html From hmccubbin at tinyworld.co.uk Tue Feb 11 09:15:18 2003 From: hmccubbin at tinyworld.co.uk (Henry McCubbin) Date: Thu Apr 1 12:43:31 2004 Subject: [Media-watch] Turkish anti-war call Message-ID: <001901c2d1ad$70d5c380$c2c986d9@HenryMcCubbin> ************************************************************************THIS IS A WORLD WIDE CALL FROM CITIZEN TO CITIZEN********************************************************URGENT....URGENT....URGENT....WE SHALL STOP THE WAR!Bush has obtained authorization to use nuclear arms. We are on the verge ofa major disaster. The only power which can prevent this tragedy is that ofthe world public. We call on all those people all over the world who areagainst war to join forces in JOINT and CONTINUOUS action.The action is very simple: Every night at 20:00 pm local time, we willflick lights on and off for one minute whereever we are, be it our home,office or car. And at the same time, we will make the darkness reverberatewith the sound of our whistles, horns and pots and pans to make others seeand hear our protest. If we can spread the word of this action, millions of people who say "Whatcan I do by myself?" will get involved and the lights of millions of housesflicker like fireflies. Please circulate the appeal ATTACHED to this e-mailand send it to as many people as you can. Announce and endorse this actionin the February 15th demonstrations in your countries. Organize specialevents where lights will be turned off to get press and TV coverage. HaveTV channels broadcast your most popular writers, artists, stars flickingtheir lights on and off to participate in the campaign. Have trade unions,professional chambers and organizations, non-governmental organizationscall their members to participate in the action... A WORLD FREE OF WAR IS POSSIBLE!                                        NO TO WAR IN IRAQ COALITION (*)(*) Platform in Turkey with broad membership consisting of workers' andstate employees' confederations, all professional chambers, 59 artinstitutions and non-governmental institutions representing all sectors ofsociety.WE CAN STOP THE WAR!THIS WORLD IS OURS!Holding that all war-caused deaths without any exception are manslaughter,feeling the pain of bombs dropped on Iraq in our consciences, wishing the21st century to be a century of peace, believing that a world free of waris possible, we hereby declare that we will hold to account all governmentswho participate in the war in Iraq.*Adding my voice on to the voice of the millions, I warn the USA: DO NOTTOUCH IRAQ!*I warn my own government and parliament: DO NOT BECOME ACCOMPLICES IN THISCRIME!To demonstrate my determination to stop this war, I will be turning off mylights at 20.00 p.m. every night  for one minute, starting Saturday,February the 15th. And I call on all citizens of the world to flick theirlights on and off at 20.00 pm every night until we put an end to this war. I am fully convinced that world public is stronger than governments.                THIS IS A WORLD WIDE CALL FROM CITIZEN TO CITIZEN.PS:  Send this appeal to your parliament and government. Send it to alladdresses, institutions, friends and international addresses you know,circulate and disseminate it as widely as possible. Contact information: Phone:  +90. 212 292 97 65e-mail:         peaceturkey@ttnet.net.tr********************************************************CET APPEL EST TRANSMIS DANS LE MONDE ENTIER DU CITOYEN AU CITOYEN********************************************************URGENT...URGENT...URGENT...NOUS ALLONS ARRETER CETTE GUERRE !Bush a eu l'autorisation d'utiliser des armes nucléaires. Nous sommes à laveille d'une grande catastrophe. Il n'y a que l'opinion publique mondialequi puisse être capable d'empêcher cette tragédie. Nous appelons toutindividu sur ce monde se dressant contre la guerre à prendre part dans uneaction COLLECTIVE ET PERMANENTE.Cette action est des plus simples: Chaque nuit, à 20.00 H (heure locale)nous allons allumer et éteindre les lumières de notre voiture, de notredomicile, de notre office pendant une minute, nous allons faire scintillernos lumières. En même temps avec nos sifflements, nos sifflets, nos cornes,nos casseroles, nous allons faire écho dans le noir. Pour montrer, pourfaire entendre notre protestation.Mobiliser des millions de gens qui se disent "que puis-je faire à moiseul?", transformer des millions de foyer sur le monde aux lucioles quiscintillent dans le noir dépendent de l'élargissement de cette action. S'ilvous plaît multipliez le texte d'appel envoyé ci-joint, transmettez-le àtoutes vos adresses. Parlez-en pendant les manifestations du 15 février.Projetez cette action dans un cadre médiatique. Que les images de vosauteurs, de vos artistes les plus connus allumant et éteignant leur lumièrese transmettent sur l'écran. Que les syndicats ouvriers, les organisationsprofessionnelles, les ONG appellent leurs membres à participer à cetteaction...UN MONDE SANS GUERRE EST POSSIBLE !LA COORDINATION DE "NON A LA GUERRE EN IRAQ" (*)                                        * Plate-forme turque, composée des syndicats ouvriers et fonctionnaires, detoutes les chambres professionnelles, de 59 organismes artistiques et desONG de tout horizon.NOUS POUVONS ARRETER LA GUERRE !CE MONDE EST A NOUS !Nous, qui considérerons chaque mort causée par cette guerre comme un crime;nous, qui sentirons chaque bombe exploser dans notre conscience; nous, quivoulons rendre le XXIème siècle celui de la paix; nous qui croyons à lapossibilité d'un monde sans guerre; nous affirmons que: nous allons jugercomme coupable tout gouvernement ayant participé à la guerre d'Iraq.· Je rejoins ma voix à la voix des millions et j'avertis les Etats-Unis: NETOUCHE PAS L'IRAQ !· J'avertis mon gouvernement, mon parlement: NE DEVIENS PAS LE COMPLICE DECE CRIME !Pour faire preuve de ma résolution ferme d'arrêter cette guerre,j'interromps les lumières de mon domicile chaque nuit, à partir du 15février samedi, exactement à 20.00 H pendant une minute. J'appelle tous lescitoyens de la planète à interrompre leur lumière et ensuite à les fairescintiller chaque nuit à 20.00 H jusqu'à l'arrêt de cette guerre.Je sais que l'opinion publique planétaire est plus puissante que lesgouvernements.CET APPEL EST TRANSMIS DANS LE MONDE ENTIER DU CITOYEN AU CITOYENNotice: Envoyez cet appel aux autorités et au parlement de votre pays.Transmettez-le à tous vos amis, à toutes les institutions, à toutes lesadresses nationales et internationales que vous connaissez.Pour tout contact:tél:    +90.212 292 97 65e-mail: peaceturkey@ttnet.net.tr******************************************************DIESER AUFRUF ERGEHT WELTWEIT VON BÜRGER/INNEN AN BÜRGER/INNEN******************************************************EILT.....EILT....EILTWIR WERDEN DEN KRIEG STOPPEN!Bush hat nun auch die Vollmacht erhalten, nukleareWaffen zu gebrauchen. Wirsind an der Schwelle zu einem großen Unglück. Diese Tragödie kann nur dieweltweite Öffentlichkeit verhindern. Wir appellieren an alle Menschen aufder Welt, die gegen den Krieg sind, an einer gemeinsamen und dauerhaftenAktion teilzunehmen.Die Aktion ist sehr einfach. Jede Nacht um 20.00 Uhr Ortszeit schalten wirdas Licht an dem Ort, an dem wir uns befinden - in unserem Haus, an unseremArbeitsplatz oder in unserem Auto - für eine Minute ein und aus. Und imselben Augenblick werden wir mit Pfeifen, Hupen und mit Töpfen undBratpfannen der Dunkelheit eine Stimme geben, um unseren Protest zu zeigenund gehört zu werden.Die Ausbreitung der Aktion ist abhaengig von der Teilnahme der MillionenMenschen, die denken "Was kann ich alleine schon machen?" und davon, dassweltweit die Lichter in Millionen von Haeusern wie Leuchtkaefer blinken.Bitte verbreiten Sie den Aufruf, den wir als Anlage schicken und leiten Sieihn an alle ihnen bekannten Adressen weiter. Geben Sie die Aktion bei denKundgebungen am 15. Februar bekannt. Planen Sie medienwirksameLichteraktionen. Auf den Fernsehbildschirmen soll zu sehen sein, wie Ihrebekanntesten SchriftstellerInnen und KünstlerInnen ihre Lichter ein- undausschalten. Gewerkschaften, Berufsverbaende undNichtregierungsorganisationen sollen ihre MitgliederInnen dazu aufrufen,sich an dieser Aktion zu beteiligen.EINE WELT OHNE KRIEG IST MÖGLICH!Die Koordination Nein zum Krieg im Irak**Türkei Plattform, in der sich Arbeiter- und Beamtenkonföderationen, alleBerufskammern, 59 Kunstvereinigungen und zivilgesellschaftlicheOrganisationen aus allen Bereichen befinden WIR KÖNNEN DEN KRIEG STOPPEN!DIES IST UNSERE WELT!Wir alle, die jeden Tod in diesem Krieg für ein Mord halten, die sichfühlen, als würde jede abgeworfene Bombe auf das eigene Gewissen fallen, die das 21. Jahrhundert zu einem Jahrhundert des Friedens machen wollen,die daran glauben, dass eine Welt ohne Krieg möglich ist; wir verkünden,dass wir jede Regierung, die sich an einem Krieg im Irak beteiligt, fürschuldig halten.Indem ich meine Stimme den Millionen anderer Stimmen hinzufüge, warne ichdie USA: LASS DIE FINGER VOM IRAK!Ich warne meine eigene Regierung und mein Parlament: BETEILIGT EUCH NICHTAN  DIESER SCHULD!Um meinem entschlossenen Wunsch, den Krieg im Irak zu stoppen, Ausdruck zuverleihen, werde ich ab Samstag, dem 15. Februar, jeden Abend um 20.00 Uhrmeine Lichter für eine Minute an- und ausschalten. Und ich rufe alle Bürgerder Welt auf, jeden Abend um 20.00 Uhr ihre Lichter an- und auszuschalten,bis der Krieg gestoppt ist.Ich weiß, die Weltöffentlichkeit ist stärker als Regierungen.DIESER AUFRUF ERGEHT WELTWEIT VON BÜRGER/INNEN AN BÜRGER/INNENPS: Schicken Sie diesen Aufruf an das Parlament Ihres Landes, und anBehörden und Regierungsinstanzen. Verbreiten Sie den Aufruf, indem Sie ihnan alle Ihnen bekannte Adressen, Vereinigungen, Freunde und Freundinnen,auch international, schicken.Kontakt Tel:            +90.212 292 97 65e-mail:         peaceturkey@ttnet.net.tr************************************************************Es un llamamiento a todo el mundo a traves de un ciudadano a otro******************************************************************************¡Urgencia!¡NO A LA GUERRA!¡Intentamos  evitar la guerra!Bush ha logrado autorización para utilizar las armas nucleares. Estamos enel umbral de un desastre mundial, un desastre que solamente se puedeimpedir con el consenso mundial. Llamamos a la gente partidaria de la pazen todo el mundo  para una acción solidaria Común y Constante.Lo que se debe hacer es muy fácil: Cada noche a las ocho de la tarde hora local vamos a apagar y encender la luz en casa, oficina o los faros delcoche durante un minuto, mientras tanto vamos a hacer ruido de algun tipo,o  silbando nosotros mismos, o tocando la bocina, o con los cacharros, osoplando el silbato, gritando a la oscuridad para manifestar y mostrarnuestra protesta.Todo depende de la intensidad de la acción, así se puede convencer a lasmillones que piensan  que  un individuo no puede hacer  mucho  y así sepuede llamar a la gente con millones de luces, encendiendolas y apagandolascomo luciérnagas.Les rogamos a Uds enviar el texto siguiente a todas las direccionesposibles, comunicándolo en las manifestaciones del 15 de Febrero . Losautores, artistas y personajes famosos pueden difundirlo a traves de losmedios de comunicación,  la pantalla de la televisión.  Sindicatos,organizaciones laborales, las ONG pueden activizar a sus miembros.¡Un mundo sin guerra es posible!Coordinadora no a la guerra en Irak*(*La plataforma turca de las confederaciones de obreros y funcionarios,todos los sindicatos y asociaciones vocacionales, 59 organizacionesartisticas y las ONG de todo tipo)  ¡Se puede evitar la guerra!¡ESTE ES NUESTRO MUNDO!Nosotros, los que consideramos un crimen cada una de las muertes en laguerra, los que se sentimos en las conciencias cada bomba que cae, los quequeremos hacer de este siglo un siglo  de Paz, los que creemos en un mundosin  guerra, nosotros declaramos que vamos a considerar culpable a cadagobierno que contribuya a la guerra en Irak.Es una advertencia a los EEUU: ¡No toques a Irak!Es una advertencia a mi parlamento: ¡No seáis cómplices de este crimen!Para mostrar mi determinación en impedir la guerra voy a apagar la luz cadanoche a las ocho empezando  el dia 15 de febrero. Es un llamamiento a todoslos ciudadanos del mundo para unirse con esta acción solidaria.Sé que el consenso mundial tiene más poder que los gobiernos.Es un llamamiento a todo el mundo a traves de un ciudadano a otro.Envíen este llamamiento al parlamento de su pais, a los poderes ejecutivosy  a todas las direcciones posibles, organizaciones y amigos.Número de teléfono : +90.212 292 97 65Correo electrónico:     peaceturkey@ttnet.net.tr From sean at nor-cote.co.uk Wed Feb 12 22:25:41 2003 From: sean at nor-cote.co.uk (Sean McKerrell) Date: Thu Apr 1 12:43:31 2004 Subject: [Media-watch] Antiwar.com bin Laden message Message-ID: <13E03B84A5CEA242B386D9E0FACE059306CD53@server.ad.nor-cote.co.uk> February 12, 2003 ONE BATTLEFIELD, TWO WARS Bush and Bin Laden: Brothers in battle against Ba'athist Iraq Colin Powell launched a pre-emptive strike early Tuesday morning against the latest evidence that the alleged Bin Laden-Al Qaeda link is a lot of malarkey. The first indication that anyone had of a new message from Osama bin Laden was Powell's statement to a Senate budget panel: "Once again [Bin Laden] speaks to the people of Iraq and talks about their struggle and how he is in partnership with Iraq. This nexus between terrorists and states that are developing weapons of mass destruction can no longer be looked away from and ignored." But it turns out that what can't be ignored is the complete agreement between Bin Laden and the Bushies on the subject of Saddam Hussein's regime. As MSNBC reported: "At the same time, the message also called on Iraqis to rise up and oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, who is a secular leader." Saddam, OBL declares, must be overthrown, because Saddam is a "socialist" and an apostate Muslim. "The hypocrites of Iraq" are "infidels," says the Terror Master, and the same goes for the governments of Yemen, Pakistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Nigeria, and any other regional "stooges" of the U.S. Antiwar.com posted this MSNBC story as soon as it appeared, but then something strange happened.... We received the following email from an alert reader, who noted: "I've been keeping an eye on the bin Laden tape story on MSNBC.com via the link on Antiwar.com, and something interesting has happened. When the link was first posted, the part about overthrowing Saddam Hussein was not included in the MSNBC.com story. Later, around 3:50 PM Eastern, the site contained this paragraph: 'At the same time, the message also called on Iraqis to rise up and oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, who is a secular leader.' When I checked back with the link on Antiwar.com around 4:35 PM Eastern, it said that this had not become part of the MSNBC.com story, so I clicked on the link again, and sure enough, it had been removed. I'm glad I copied the story with the 'overthrow Saddam' part onto my PC. It appears this part of the story, since it's inconvenient for the War Party, is being buried." Who does MSNBC think they're kidding? I called those jerks (425-703-6397). Why, I asked, had all references to Bin Laden's denunciation of the Iraqi dictator been edited out? Some drone at the "News Desk" actually expected me to believe his line of bull about how they were "waiting to get that confirmed" by a translator from Associated Press - this while MSNBC's own translator was reading the part about Bin Laden's call for overthrowing Saddam over the air! When I informed him of this, he insisted that everything had to be vetted by AP, even as MSNBC's own analysts were trenchantly concurring that this was "one battlefield, two wars." Both Bush and Bin Laden had declared war on Saddam Hussein, and "the race is on" for the doomed despot's domain. Meanwhile, MSNBC revised their story yet again: "MSNBC.com initially cited an extemporaneous translation that mistakenly quoted the speaker as calling on Iraqis to overthrow Saddam Hussein." The MSNBC website had no sooner revised history, then Reuters posted a more honest version: "The statement did not express support for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein - it said Muslims should support the Iraqi people rather than the country's government." The Reuters story went on to cite the Bin Laden message: "'The fighting should be in the name of God only, not in the name of national ideologies, nor to seek victory for the ignorant governments that rule all Arab states, including Iraq,' the statement said." Meanwhile, the story went out over the wire as "Osama, Iraq 'find common cause'," (the Australian version), "Bin Laden Condemns Iraq Plans" (the BBC), and "Bin Laden Tape Urges Iraqi Suicide Bombs" (ABC News). This last report, however, admitted that Bin Laden denounced Iraq's ruling Ba'ath Socialist Party as "infidels," yet only chose to briefly cite the terrorist leader's rationale objectively aligning himself with the hated Saddamite infidels: "'It does not harm in these circumstances that the interests of Muslims and socialists crisscross in fighting against the Crusaders,' he said. He urged Iraqis to fight the Americans whether or not Saddam remains in power." What this message fatally undermines is the administration's whole rationale for a pre-emptive strike against Iraq: that an alliance of convenience between Al Qaeda and Saddam will supply the former and his operatives worldwide with weapons of mass destruction. Bin Laden, the religious fanatic and sectarian, doesn't ally himself with anyone: only those who fight under the banner of militant Islam deserve support. The rulers of the Arab states, in the Ladenite view, are all apostates and puppets of the U.S. and Israel, and the terrorists' fondest wish is to see them all overthrown - a desire the Ladenites share with our neoconservative war-birds, who call for the "liberation" and "democratization" of the region at gunpoint. In his book, The Terror Masters, a veritable manifesto of the War Party (neocon wing), Michael Ledeen calls for "creative destruction" in the Middle East: that is precisely what Bin Laden and his fellow fanatics are joyfully awaiting. With the last remnants of Arab secularism in power - the Ba'athists and the PLO - wiped out in the center of the region, what Norman Podhoretz calls "World War IV" will commence, pitting the U.S. and Israel (with compliant Turkey reluctantly but dutifully tagging along) against the entire Muslim world, personified by Bin Laden. The lesson of how this story unfolded and is being reported is that truth is irrelevant to our captive news media and putty in the hands of our government. The news is not reported: it is shaped, spun, and molded to fit the party line. The problem with the effort to shape the news is that the truth eventually comes out, and this process has been greatly accelerated by the advent of the internet. CNN has "excerpts" from the Bin Laden missive, which completely undercut the administration's claim of a "link" between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi regime: "It doesn't matter whether the socialist (Ba'ath) party or Saddam disappear.... And it doesn't harm in these conditions the interest of Muslims to agree with those of the socialists in fighting against the crusaders, even though we believe the socialists are infidels. For the socialists and the rulers have lost their legitimacy a long time ago, and the socialists are infidels regardless of where they are, whether in Baghdad or in Aden. ..." Having succeeded in diverting Americans away from the war on Al Qaeda, and instead focusing on the alleged danger from Iraq, the War Party suddenly finds itself confronted with a rude reminder - and Americans begin to remember a name that our government would like to believe everyone has forgotten: Osama bin Laden. The first supposedly "full text" translation of Bin Laden's message comes from the BBC, and it seems to be at variance, in many places, with CNN's. Whole paragraphs seem to have been left out or unaccountably altered in the BBC version, which hardly seems long enough to take up its alleged length of some fifteen minutes. This story is spinning so fast it threatens to unravel before our very eyes.... - Justin Raimondo From david.miller at stir.ac.uk Fri Feb 14 11:38:23 2003 From: david.miller at stir.ac.uk (David Miller) Date: Thu Apr 1 12:43:33 2004 Subject: [Media-watch] FW: Exposing power to the sunlight Message-ID: <570E2BEE7BC5A34684EE5914FCFC368C0209B5E7@fillan.stir.ac.uk> ---------- From: MediaLens Media Alerts Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 10:39:19 UT To: Friend Subject: Exposing power to the sunlight MEDIA LENS: Correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media February 14, 2003 MEDIA ALERT: A DAY OF GLOBAL ACTION FOR PEACE Mainstream media stand exposed On Saturday 15 February, anti-war demonstrations will be taking place around the world. The Media Lens co-editors will be joining upwards of half-a-million peace activists in London. This promises to be the biggest public protest in British history. We await the mainstream coverage of this day with interest: not only to see the extent and tone of coverage devoted to the public opposition to the Bush-Blair terror campaign, but also to observe whether the cogent views of peace campaigners are afforded even one day to undermine many months, indeed years, of constant deception, omission and outright lies emanating from the war-mongers in Washington and London. In the run-up to this momentous day for peace, Media Lens readers have been responding in force to our media alerts, deluging the offices of the BBC, ITN, The Guardian, The Observer and The Independent with emails protesting about weak, biased and distorted news reporting and analysis, and near-universal media propagation of the Blair-Bush barrage of warmongering propaganda. The British public's opposition to war - regardless of any bribery, blackmail or coercion in any US-UK attempt to rig a fig-leaf second United Nations resolution - would be almost total if the British media reported accurately, fairly and responsibly the deceptions of US-UK power. The disturbing front-cover photograph in Wednesday's Independent, depicting a malnourished four-year-old Iraqi boy, is an example of the kind of reporting that ought to have been prominent for the last twelve years The photograph illustrated foreign editor Leonard Doyle's news report of the potential humanitarian catastrophe to come. Doyle noted: "With or without UN Security Council backing, the looming war on Iraq will have immediate and devastating consequences for the country's children, more vulnerable now than before the 1991 Gulf War." ('Vulnerable but ignored: how catastrophe threatens the 12 million children of Iraq', Leonard Doyle, The Independent, 12 February, 2003) But Doyle still failed to draw a direct link with US-UK culpability for the ongoing Iraqi 'genocide' (to quote Denis Halliday, former UN humanitarian coordinator in Iraq). If this is the most enlightened that liberal reporting ever gets in this country, it shows the appalling failure of mainstream media to hold our politicians to account as we stand on the verge of a truly horrendous assault on an already stricken nation. It is to the credit of the British people that there is nonetheless such enormous public opposition to our 'leaders' who are quite prepared for others to pay a 'blood price': elite politicians who, in a truly democratic society, would now be standing trial for their war crimes in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. Media Lens readers shame editors and journalists into replying Journalists, like any professionals, dislike accusations of laziness or incompetence. These charges are, however, readily shrugged off. What they really can't stand is being accused of defending or sheltering elite power. But this is indeed the primary role of journalists in modern society. As Harvard professor Samuel 'Clash of Civilisations' Huntington once rightly observed: "The architects of power must create a force that can be felt but not seen. Power remains strong when it remains in the dark; exposed to the sunlight it begins to evaporate." (Quoted, 'Propaganda and the Public Mind: Conversations with Noam Chomsky', David Barsamian and Noam Chomsky, Pluto Press, London, 2001, page 8) Below, we present a number of media responses to literally hundreds of challenges by Media Lens readers. These responses indicate that editors and journalists feel deeply uncomfortable about having their output challenged patiently, rationally and persistently. We invite readers to maintain or even increase public pressure on media outlets to report honestly and critically, and refuse to allow such outlets to provide little more than an echo chamber for government propaganda. In particular, television news on both the BBC and ITV is execrable in this regard. Paxman fails the public Following our analysis of Jeremy Paxman's Newsnight interview with Tony Blair (see media alerts section of www.medialens.org; media alerts dated 10 and 11 February, 2003 ) many readers emailed Paxman: some in their own words, and others using the letter we had suggested below: "Why, in the recent Newsnight interview with Tony Blair (February 6, 2003), did the BBC fail to present even the most basic counter-arguments to Blair's case for war? Why did you not mention that Iraq had been "fundamentally disarmed" by 1998, according to chief UN arms inspector Scott Ritter? Why did you not mention that Iraq's nuclear capability had been 100% destroyed? Why did you not raise the fact that limited shelf-lives mean that any residual Iraqi chemical and biological weapons must by now be harmless sludge? Why did you not refer to the many credible and authoritative voices arguing that war on Iraq is about oil and will have the effect of exacerbating the terrorist threat against the West?" On 11 February, Jeremy Paxman responded to one Media Lens reader: "You evidently did not watch the thing. If you honestly believe that 50 minutes of sustained questioning and an audience entirely made up of critics of the war amounts to some whitewash of Blair, then there is simply no basis for discussion. Good night." Although we are pleased to note that Jeremy Paxman at least responded, his answer is completely dismissive, addressing none of the points raised. This kind of arrogant refusal to engage with reasoned challenge is sadly commonplace. However, what it does reveal is the inability of apparently authoritative journalists to respond rationally. As we noted in our two-part analysis of Paxman's interview, audience members were neither sufficiently well-armed with the basic facts nor adept at pressing home their points: a dual role which Paxman, the BBC's seasoned 'rottweiler', singularly failed to perform on the public's behalf. Liberal smokescreens, establishment guardians We remind readers that we focus repeatedly and deliberately on the liberal media, as these delimit the 'acceptable' limit of left-green dissident expression in the mainstream (see 'FAQ' section at www.medialens.org for more on this). In almost two years of issuing media alerts on the abysmal performance of The Guardian in reporting (or rather not reporting) important issues such as big business lobbying to stifle measures on combating climate change, deceptive corporate spin and PR, massive public subsidies made to private interests such as the arms industry, the fakery of the 'war on terror', the west's attack on Afghanistan, the ongoing devastation of Iraq by genocidal sanctions regime, Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger has never sent more than the very occasional cursory or flippant reply. A recent example, after a polite and considered challenge by a Media Lens reader: "I wonder - from your email - if you actually read the Guardian, or whether you are responding to a suggested form of words on a website?" (Email from Alan Rusbridger to Media Lens reader, 7 February, 2003). This kind of lazy and facetious editorial put-down implies that people mindlessly respond to Media Lens media alerts as though they are well-programmed automatons. Thus, an editor need never deign to pick up the gauntlet and actually engage with the argument presented to him (see: 'Why the Media Will Not Debate With Media Lens', media alert, June 19, 2002; www.medialens.org ). Thanks to ever-increasing persistent and polite pressure of readers' emails, Rusbridger has finally capitulated and actually formulated a seemingly reasonable response: "Thanks for your inquiry, one of a number evidently prompted by Media Lens. A word on their figures, which claim to prove a pro-war bias in the Guardian: this is a terribly crude and simplistic way to measure - or comment on - coverage. Tony Benn's trip to see Saddam was interesting - and we reported it pretty fully. But he's not running the show. George Bush, Tony Blair, Donald Rumsfeld are. So it would not amaze me if mentions of these three outnumber the campaigners for peace by a significant margin. That reflects the absolute reality of the situation. If you read the Guardian regularly you'll know that we've run numerous comment pieces arguing against the war - far more than any other British title. You'd also know that we've devoted huge resources to reporting, analysis and context. We did seven pages on Powell's speech - much of it highly sceptical. The weakness of the MediaLens approach - which is avowedly to concentrate on the liberal and progressive press is that that very process introduces its own distortions. So, when a few people respond to MediaLens's promptings to write in claiming they'll cancel the Guardian I'm afraid I'm rather sceptical myself. I'd be intrigued to learn which source of news and comment meets a higher, more progressive standard - including standards of accuracy, fairness and truth." (Email from Alan Rusbridger to Media Lens reader, 7 February, 2003) We would like to reassure Rusbridger that Media Lens has not been set up to compete with the Guardian as a "source of news and comment". We invite him to take a look at the "Frequently Asked Questions" section at www.medialens.org so that he may clarify in his own mind the aims, function and motivation of Media Lens. We do, however, agree with Rusbridger that using the Guardian online archive database to search for keywords such as "Iraq Donald Rumsfeld" or "Iraq Denis Halliday" gives only a crude measure of the relative degree and context of coverage afforded establishment and dissident viewpoints. But Media Lens has not argued otherwise. The crucial point, which Rusbridger apparently fails to grasp, is that we provide such search results to +complement+ the in-depth analysis of the reporting and arguments that are presented in The Guardian's news and comment pages. Rusbridger has yet to respond to the many substantive points made in these alerts. Moreover, when Media Lens observes that in 2002, The Guardian devoted almost zero coverage in the comment pages, and zero mentions in the news pages, to the authoritative views of former UN humanitarian coordinators in Baghdad, Hans von Sponeck (one comment article) and Denis Halliday (none), such a 'crude measure' cannot easily be dismissed. Rusbridger argues that George Bush, Tony Blair and Donald Rumsfeld are "running the show". This is so largely because politicians' deceptive rhetoric is not seriously and repeatedly subject to the scrutiny it deserves. For example, the scepticism supposedly displayed by The Guardian towards Powell's speech, or any other aspect of the ongoing Iraq crisis, is almost invariably within a narrow framework that excludes radical analysis of the substance of the policies followed by the UK and the US governments. 'Scepticism' about Powell's deceptive claims of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction is one thing; exposing the reality that WMD is a smokescreen for US hegemony is another: that would be real scepticism. If such persistent serious challenges did occur in the mainstream, then no doubt powerful 'flak' would quickly be deployed by elite politicians who would likely threaten denial of access to government sources in the future: a scary prospect indeed for news editors anywhere. Such extreme measures rarely have to be implemented, simply because obedient media managers know the acceptable limits of challenge and behave accordingly. The establishment-friendly 'news' and 'analysis' that are thus generated serve power and profit, and not the public need and desire for objectivity, fairness and balance. Nor is mainstream media output characterised by the rationality, context, humanity, and the incisiveness of the wealth of material that appears every day on 'alternative' internet sources, such as the indispensable ZNet website at www.zmag.org. Such sites are becoming increasingly popular, as more and more people question the value, accuracy and hidden agendas of mainstream news channels. Observer of falling standards Many readers have also challenged The Observer, particularly following its pro-war editorial last month ('Iraq: the case for decisive action', 19 January, 2003). Roger Alton, the editor, and Ben Summerskill, assistant editor, have responded thus to Media Lens readers: "Thank you very much for your e-mail. As you might imagine, we have received a number of very similar notes from both readers and non-readers of the paper. The Observer seeks, as it always has, to reflect a broad range of views and sources of information. In the last few weeks alone, we have carried Ian Fisher's report from Saddam City on what ordinary Iraqis think about a possible war, a lengthy forensic analysis undermining claims of a link between al-Zarkqawi and al-Qaeda with Iraq, a huge exposé in our business pages of who stands to make money out of a war, Charles Kennedy's utterly passionate denunciation of the possibility of war, Mary Riddell's columns on our comment pages arguing the case for being a 'dove', Will Hutton's polemics on the inadequacies of George Bush, Terry Jones's excoriating attack on Bush as well. We have also published huge numbers of letters from readers supporting and opposing military action in proportion to the number we have received. We have also recently carried articles by contributors to other publications such as John Pilger. It is difficult to see how someone could think we had not welcomed a range of views into the paper unless, perhaps, they hadn't been reading it too closely. (Although, of course, there are some potential contributors such as Tony Benn who have simply refused any contact.) We have also received, as you might also imagine, some letters suggesting that people might no longer buy the Observer. Regardless of any impact this has financially (it just reduces the resources available to give coverage to a huge range of important things we report) this does seem a bizarre, even authoritarian, response to a suggestion of lack of inclusion. Should you examine the whole of the Observer carefully over the past six or seven months, and over the next six or seven, we're sure you will feel reassured about the variety of coverage within it. Thanks again for writing. We're always delighted to hear from readers." Roger Alton (Editor) Ben Summerskill (Assistant Editor) (Email dated 8 February, 2003) Media Lens has demonstrated in case after case over nearly two years that The Observer has failed abysmally to give due attention to the abuses of state-corporate power (see archived media alerts). On Iraq, its editors may feel that they "reflect" a "broad range of views and sources of information", but the predominant content and tenor of its news coverage strongly reflects establishment priorities, and discussion is almost exclusively restricted within boundary conditions set by US-UK power: such as the doctrine that the reason for invading Iraq would be to rid the country of alleged weapons of mass destruction. Reporting that scrutinises power, and truly rational and challenging analysis, are conspicuous by their absence. Very occasionally, fig-leaf exceptions do appear, thus maintaining the illusion of fair, accurate and balanced coverage. We recall the observation of George Orwell, sadly more relevant now than ever: "I really don't know which is more stinking, the Sunday Times or The Observer. I go from one to the other like an invalid turning from side to side in bed and getting no comfort which ever way he turns." (George Orwell, quoted, Bernard Crick, George Orwell, A Life, p.233, Penguin Books, 1992). ITN's concern for human rights On 10 February, we challenged Jonathan Munro, ITN's head of newsgathering, about his news priorities that day: Dear Jonathan Munro Even by the dismal standards of recent ITN reporting, your decision to promote the Michael Douglas/Catherine Zeta Jones court trial above the Franco-German peace plan and Nato split over war against Iraq in today's lunchtime News is truly staggering. Sincerely David Edwards Co-Editor - Media Lens Munro was very quick to reply, responding within a few minutes: "I'm sorry, but I can't agree. We are leading the vast majority of our programmes at the moment with stories related to the war. The Zeta Jones case is a legally crucial hearing, about human rights such as privacy. Its outcome will have far reaching implications for the freedom of the press, and the rights of the individual. It's a very legitimate lead, especially as the Franco-German plan was in the public domain over the weekend, and is not a new story for the Lunchtime News audience. You have no justification for your sweeping description of our reporting as 'dismal' - I think you'll find that in London, Baghdad and New York, we have given enormous amounts of air time to all sides in the Iraqi debate, and we shall continue to do so. Indeed Trevor McDonald presented two programmes from Baghdad last week, including the only British TV interview with Tariq Aziz after the first Blix report. Many of the people who forward round-robin e-mails to me and others about our coverage are clearly not even watching the programmes, since they make the same points to BBC and ITN executives, regardless of which network is running stories." By the 10 o'clock news that evening, the Zeta Jones case had made way for Iraq as the lead story. In the meantime, we look forward to ITN continuing to give heavy prominence to human rights issues, such as privacy. BBC fails to uphold its self-declared Reithian ideals Meanwhile, Richard Sambrook, the BBC's director of news, has responded to similar criticisms regarding the BBC's failure to provide an accurate and comprehensible view of the ongoing Iraqi crisis: "Thank you for your email about our reporting of the situation in Iraq. I'm afraid I cannot agree with your assertion that we fail to reflect dissenting voices in the conflict, and that we do not examine the possible consequences of a war against Iraq. BBC News has frequently broadcast a range of views including many from those opposed to war - and we shall continue to do so. In recent months we have broadcast views from, among others, Noam Chomsky, Dennis Kucinich, Denis Halliday, Hana Ashwari, Kamila Shamsie, Dr Mercy Heatley, Ken Loach, Prof. Paul Rogers, Paul Robinson from Hull University, George Galloway, Scott Ritter, Ken Livingstone, Tony Benn and the views of citizens in the UK, Iraq and elsewhere in the world who have all questioned the plans for war. A month ago an entire edition of Panorama was devoted to "The Case Against War" which included views from a number of people connected with the US and British military establishments in the last Gulf War who are opposed to conflict now. The BBC will continue to report all issues, including Iraq, with impartiality and to provide a platform for a wide range of views." Richard Sambrook Director, BBC News (Email dated 7 February, 2003) Sambrook neatly side-steps the question of why the BBC's coverage is so heavily slanted towards the government's agenda. Sitting in his plush directorial office, with a very comfortable salary and an extensive network of establishment contacts, he may be 'afraid' that he cannot agree with 'assertions' from viewers about unbalanced BBC coverage. It is always possible to pick out a few counter-examples to establishment-friendly reporting: a mildly challenging Panorama programme here, a dissident allowed a couple of minutes there. A measure of dissent is marginally more prominent on radio programmes, but again this is swamped in volume and intensity by uncritical news reporting and analysis, characterised by the vacuous BBC1 'debate' hosted by David Dimbleby on Wednesday evening this week (Iraq: Britain decides, 12 February, 2003). But the overwhelming pattern is of compliance with a view of the world shaped by power and profit. Even the professed need to display "impartiality" is deceptive. As the Brazilian writer and educator Paolo Freire once noted: "Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral." (Quoted, 'Propaganda and the Public Mind: Conversations with Noam Chomsky', David Barsamian and Noam Chomsky, Pluto Press, London, 2001, pp. 214-215) It is a disgrace to see the publicly-funded BBC raising levels of domestic fear and terror by repeatedly highlighting government warnings of 'terrorist threats', and refraining from challenging seriously the government's agenda, as we have documented in many media alerts in the last few months. As noted above, so-called 'dissident' (perhaps we ought to say 'rational') voices are rarely, if ever, given top billing in television news bulletins. If the BBC were to host just one peak-time, thirty-minute programme in which any one of Noam Chomsky, John Pilger or Milan Rai, for instance, were able to challenge Tony Blair or Jack Straw, then the US-UK supposed case for war would quickly crumble before the public's eye. But Blair and Straw can rest easy. There is little risk that a mainstream news broadcaster would perform such a public duty. War, therefore, becomes more of an inevitability. As media analyst W. Lance Bennett once observed: "The public is exposed to powerful persuasive messages from above and is unable to communicate meaningfully through the media in response to these messages Leaders have usurped enormous amounts of political power and reduced popular control over the political system by using the media to generate support, compliance, and just plain confusion among the public." (Media analyst W. Lance Bennett, quoted in 'Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media', Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, Vintage, London, 1994, p. 303). On Saturday, 15 February, the US and UK governments will, for once, be treated to an enormous show of popular support for peace. It may terrify our leaders, but it will help to liberate us. SUGGESTED ACTION: The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. In writing letters to journalists, we strongly urge readers to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone. Write to the heads of BBC news and ITN expressing your views: Richard Sambrook, BBC director of news. Email: richard.sambrook@bbc.co.uk Jonathan Munro, head of ITN newsgathering. Email: jonathan.munro@itn.co.uk Write to the editors of The Guardian and The Observer: Alan Rusbridger, Guardian editor Email: alan.rusbridger@guardian.co.uk Roger Alton, Observer editor Email: roger.alton@observer.co.uk Write to the editor and foreign editor of The Independent: Simon Kelner, Independent editor Email: s.kelner@independent.co.uk Leonard Doyle, Independent foreign editor Email: l.doyle@independent.co.uk You might like to ask them one or more of the following: 1. Why does your coverage of the Iraq crisis not seriously challenge the stated reasons by US and UK politicians for going to war. 2. In particular, the US and UK governments have focussed attention on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and alleged actual or possible future links with terrorists, such as the al-Qaeda network. Why has the overwhelming majority of your coverage been fixed within this deceptive framework? 3. Why have you not given the same treatment to a more rational analysis that presupposes a desire for the US to maintain and extend its hold on global resources, lock foreign countries into US-led corporate globalisation, and provide a showcase of awesome destructive military power against a weakened country, as a demonstration of what will befall any challenger? 4. Why do you allow Tony Blair, Jack Straw and other ministers to continue repeating myths, deceptions and lies about Iraq and terrorism? 5. Why have you had so little coverage of the likely effects on the Iraqi people of a massive assault on Iraq? 6. Why don't you carry any seriously challenging critique of your own media performance on any issue? Please copy all your letters to editor@medialens.org Feel free to respond to Media Lens alerts: editor@medialens.org Visit the Media Lens website: http://www.medialens.org To unsubscribe: http://www.medialens.org/cgi/swm/swmlist.cgi?mode=r&a=media&e=david.miller@s tir.ac.uk From david.miller at stir.ac.uk Fri Feb 21 10:26:20 2003 From: david.miller at stir.ac.uk (david Miller) Date: Thu Apr 1 12:43:33 2004 Subject: [Media-watch] moving on/ detecting bias Message-ID: Dear all, we had a small meeting last night to discuss moving the media watch idea on.  We agreed to plan an extended meeting with a video showing on media and propaganda in war and possibly a couple of speakers (including one or two journalists), followed by a workshop on how to identify bias and how to complain. Anyone who can help with this, please get in touch. Below is a list of (US) resources on detecting bias.  I will circulate more as I come across them.  In other emails I will circulate a list of contact details for the Scottish media.  We decided that an immediate priority was to produce a laminated media watch card with emails and phone numbers for the main Scottish and UK news outlets so that people can complain whenever they get annoyed by the latest piece of spin/distortion. The media are in a quandary just now, because they can see that there is massive opposition to the war, but the political establishment is so out of kilter.  They are so used to speaking to 'experts' and political leaders that they haven't got much of an idea about how to cover mass dissent.  In this climate it is all the more important that as many people as possible complain about distortions and omissions. Let's try and use this list as a means of encouraging people to complain for themselves.... I will be in touch again soon. David Detecting bias in the news: How to Detect Bias in the News http://www.media-awareness.ca/eng/med/class/teamedia/peace/bias7.htm Detecting Bias in the News http://faculty.washington.edu/~jalbano/bias.html Recognising bias and distortion in television news programs http://hsc.csu.edu.au/pta/scansw/bias.htm The Media Bias Detector (adapted from the book Unreliable Sources: A Guide to Detecting Bias in the News) http://www.adamranson.freeserve.co.uk/fair%20media%20bias%20detector%20.PDF FAIR¹s Media Activism Kit http://www.fair.org/activism/activismkit.html Citizens and the Media: Fact, Opinion, Bias http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/education/teachers/strategies/1998/Plan33e.htm Topic: September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon Deconstructing Images From the Media http://www.mit.edu/cms/reconstructions/education/audiofoot.html Topic: The Gulf War A Lesson in Media Literacy http://www.newsworld.cbc.ca/flashback/1991/gulfclass.html From david.miller at stir.ac.uk Fri Feb 21 10:36:08 2003 From: david.miller at stir.ac.uk (david Miller) Date: Thu Apr 1 12:43:34 2004 Subject: [Media-watch] Media watch Message-ID: Dear all, please feel free to circulate this invitation to join media Watch to any relevant contacts/lists. Media Watch:  Holding the Scottish and UK media accountable Media watch is a new initiative which aims to hold the media accountable for mis-reporting of the crisis in Iraq and the 'war on terror'.  It aims to * encourage people to encourage the media to report more of the case against war by complaining about poor coverage and praising good reporting. * monitor the media and take action to rectify problems of bias, censorship and omission by writing letters taking complaints regulators and issuing statements. To get this off the ground we need volunteers to work collectively and to complain to the media when appropriate.  We have established an email list for people who are interested and will provide briefing materials a via this.  To get info about signing up send a message with just the word 'help' as the subject or in the body, to: media-watch-request@lists.stir.ac.uk Alternatively, to sign up on the web go to: http://lists.stir.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/media-watch From d.j.smith at stir.ac.uk Fri Feb 21 11:56:46 2003 From: d.j.smith at stir.ac.uk (Darren Smith {Psych}) Date: Thu Apr 1 12:43:34 2004 Subject: [Media-watch] moving on/ detecting bias Message-ID: I was wondering whether we could have media campaign themes, or issues, that we could get others new to media activism to get involved with. I.e., what simple changes to the media could we collectively campaign for, and make it easy for others new to this to get involved? E.g., maybe we could start a campaign to get Newsnight or some other regular interview show to get prominent left wingers on TV. Maybe we could campaign for investigations on special issues etc. It would then be easy to write up a web page or pamphet about such a campaign, and then suggest example letters that could be written, and to whom they should be sent, etc. Just a thought. Darren -----Original Message----- From: david Miller To: media-watch@lists.stir.ac.uk Sent: 21/02/2003 10:25 Subject: [Media-watch] moving on/ detecting bias Dear all, we had a small meeting last night to discuss moving the media watch idea on. We agreed to plan an extended meeting with a video showing on media and propaganda in war and possibly a couple of speakers (including one or two journalists), followed by a workshop on how to identify bias and how to complain. Anyone who can help with this, please get in touch. Below is a list of (US) resources on detecting bias. I will circulate more as I come across them. In other emails I will circulate a list of contact details for the Scottish media. We decided that an immediate priority was to produce a laminated media watch card with emails and phone numbers for the main Scottish and UK news outlets so that people can complain whenever they get annoyed by the latest piece of spin/distortion. The media are in a quandary just now, because they can see that there is massive opposition to the war, but the political establishment is so out of kilter. They are so used to speaking to 'experts' and political leaders that they haven't got much of an idea about how to cover mass dissent. In this climate it is all the more important that as many people as possible complain about distortions and omissions. Let's try and use this list as a means of encouraging people to complain for themselves.... I will be in touch again soon. David Detecting bias in the news: How to Detect Bias in the News http://www.media-awareness.ca/eng/med/class/teamedia/peace/bias7.htm Detecting Bias in the News http://faculty.washington.edu/~jalbano/bias.html Recognising bias and distortion in television news programs http://hsc.csu.edu.au/pta/scansw/bias.htm The Media Bias Detector (adapted from the book Unreliable Sources: A Guide to Detecting Bias in the News) http://www.adamranson.freeserve.co.uk/fair%20media%20bias%20detector%20. PDF FAIR¹s Media Activism Kit http://www.fair.org/activism/activismkit.html Citizens and the Media: Fact, Opinion, Bias http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/education/teachers/strategies/19 98/Plan33e.htm Topic: September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon Deconstructing Images From the Media http://www.mit.edu/cms/reconstructions/education/audiofoot.html Topic: The Gulf War A Lesson in Media Literacy http://www.newsworld.cbc.ca/flashback/1991/gulfclass.html From david.miller at stir.ac.uk Sun Feb 23 11:12:43 2003 From: david.miller at stir.ac.uk (david Miller) Date: Thu Apr 1 12:43:35 2004 Subject: [Media-watch] FW: [media-culture] AIDC Doco Makers oppose a war on Iraq In-Reply-To: <021101c2da58$6f4400a0$e61d8b90@q2b7t0> Message-ID: for info ---------- From: "Susan Metcalfe" Reply-To: media-culture@yahoogroups.com Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 20:54:32 +1100 To: Subject: [media-culture] AIDC Doco Makers oppose a war on Iraq The following is the text from a press release sent out after last week's AIDC conference in Byron Bay. AIDC Doco Makers oppose a war on Iraq In the final sessions of the 8th Australian International Documentary Conference held this week in Byron Bay documentary makers from Australia and around the world expressed their passionate opposition to a war on Iraq and challenged the mainstream media to oppose the distortion and manipulation of one of the first casualties of war - TRUTH Two resolutions were passed: Resolution 1 The Documentary Filmmakers at the Australian International Documentary Conference 2003 oppose a war on Iraq. Resolution 2 The Australian and international delegation insists that broadcasters look to independent sources to reflect the diversity of opinion. We call on the media to always acknowledge when material comes from a pool source and when it is not genuinely and independently sourced. We challenge the international media to hold the freedom of information as their greatest responsibility in the lead up to and in coverage of any possible conflict. We as documentary makers ask the broadcasters to take responsibility for the role they play to create a peaceful and sustainable future. In the sessions were the principal guests of the Conference, Wim Wenders, Tim Page, Donata Wenders, Peter Wintonick, Molly Dineen and Daniel Cross, some of the most high profile documentary makers in the world. They say: This war would be unprecedented and at the origin of many wars to come. It MUST not happen. Wim Wenders (GERMANY/USA) Feature Film and Documentary Maker (Buena Vista Social Club) As the filmmaker hired by Tony Blair to propagate his image prior to his election I feel betrayed and deeply saddened by his total lack of interest in the majority of public opinion. Molly Dinnen (UK) Independent Documentary Maker (Tony Blair - A 10 minute portrait and The Lord¹s Prayer) It is time to hold the media and programmers accountable for the stories they report. In the age of terrorism alerts and reality TV shows such as "Are you hot?", we need to provide viewers with the truth. The media is responsible.Tim Page (AUS) Vietnam and Cambodian War Photographer and Documentarian The enemy is in the heads of people. It is produced by being scared of difference. We should be embracing the differences rather than fearing them. Then there could not be a war. It has to do with love in the end. What about loving your enemy?Donata Wenders (GERMANY/USA) internationally acclaimed stills photographer I found that the documentary makers at the AIDC are dedicated to humanity, compassion and global understanding. They, like me, are against the war and challenge our working colleagues in the media to stop the campaigns of fear and start to promote peace. Daniel Cross (CAN) Independent documentary maker (S.P.I.T. and The Street) Wim Wenders and the company Reverse Angle are taking a lead in the effort to tell alternative stories of Peace. Wim and invited filmmakers, actors and musicians from across the world are currently producing a compilation film titled An Epic In Praise Of Peace. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] To unsubscribe, email media-culture-unsubscribe@egroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From david.miller at stir.ac.uk Sun Feb 23 11:22:41 2003 From: david.miller at stir.ac.uk (david Miller) Date: Thu Apr 1 12:43:35 2004 Subject: [Media-watch] BBC disqualify band for "anti war messaage"-"Seize The Day"removed from contest In-Reply-To: <14.a10197a.2b7e11ee@aol.com> Message-ID: Can everyone complain about this? emails at bottom. BBC disqualify band for "anti war messaage"-"Seize The Day" removed from contest From: Theo To: Theo seizetheday@thismoment.freeserve.co.uk Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 2:32 PM Subject: Denied Award? Dear Friend, I am sorry to tell you that "Seize The Day" have been disqualified from the Radio 3 Awards, because of what the BBC call "voting irregularities". This means that thousands of your votes for us have been discounted because, in their words, we have turned it into a "political contest". At no time did the BBC see fit to contact us or tell us what they didn't like about our campaign for votes. The first we knew was when we visited their web-site last night, and discovered they had taken us off. Neither have they been prepared to consider simply discounting the recent votes they dissapproved of, and counting what was left. Clearly we were winning, but in their words this had become an anti-war campaign and the BBC could not tolerate that "in the current climate". "This is intended to be a musical award.... not motivated and organised for political reasons..." - You don't win prizes for singing to stop War! Having featured on the Peace Not War album which has sold around 8 thousand copies in Europe, we have simply made sure that people who like the song "united states" knew they could vote for us. We believe some one has put pressure on them from above, to prevent us rightfully winning an award for singing passionately about current human concerns... Well, we intend to put pressure on them from below! If you are not happy about having your vote for us discounted, we'd encourage you to contact BBC radio 3 by phone and email. We'd especially encourage you to tell them any impressive proffessional credentials you have etc. Also to make it clear why you supported our nomination. The number is 08700 100 300. Ask to speak to someone from Radio 3. Roger Wright R3 controller, Stephen Whittle Head of Editorial Policy, Tessa Watts, or alex webb. The other number is - Talia Hull on 0207 765 4934. The email addresses are: alex.webb@bbc.co.uk roger.short@bbc.co.uk (Please send blind carbon-copies - bcc - to Seize The Day at this address). seizetheday@thismoment.freeserve.co.uk From david.miller at stir.ac.uk Sun Feb 23 11:26:08 2003 From: david.miller at stir.ac.uk (david Miller) Date: Thu Apr 1 12:43:36 2004 Subject: [Media-watch] FW: ACTION: Iraq - BBC reporters gagged In-Reply-To: <20030214122503.57981.qmail@web12508.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Maybe a bit late?  But wouldn't hurt to complain. Subject: Fwd:ACTION: Iraq - BBC reporters gagged To: undisclosed-recipients: ; Subject: [campeace] ACTION: Iraq - BBC reporters gagged ACTIONS AT BOTTOM - please forward on. Protest against BBC gagging of reporters! Senior editorial staff and BBC news presenters have been instructed not to join a demonstration against possible war with Iraq. An article in the BBC's internal magazine Ariel states: "The BBC's deputy head of news, Mark Damazer, said that there was a 'need to balance a respect for civil liberties with the BBC's need to be impartial.' 'The view taken by the BBC about this weekend's peace march is that senior editorial decision makers and people who present the BBC's news programmes should not attend the march,' he said." This talk of "balance" is nonsense. There was no such ban on presenters taking part in the Countryside Alliance march in September. This is purely an attempt to intimidate senior news staff from challenging t! he government on Iraq. Run by Tony's cronies, BBC staff are under pressure from the government to back the war drive. Reporters with political views critical of the establishment often generate the finest investigative reporting, precisely because they ask penetrating questions. Good reporting does not depend on a journalist's political views, but on their ability to present key facts and opinions clearly and to probe each in a rigorous and critical manner. Moreover, it just so happens that BBC 1 will, at 12.05pm on Saturday -- just as the anti-war march is starting -- be going live to the Arsenal vs Man Utd match. What's more important? 11 people on a football pitch or millions on the streets across the world and the half-million casualties in Iraq that the UN calculates will result from war? Please send your comments on this blatant censorship to Mark.Damazer@bbc.co.uk Or phone him at the BBC on 020 7240 3456! . Dave For Media Workers Against the War www.mwaw.org tel 07801 789 297 From david.miller at stir.ac.uk Mon Feb 24 12:03:07 2003 From: david.miller at stir.ac.uk (david Miller) Date: Thu Apr 1 12:43:36 2004 Subject: [Media-watch] BBC stifles dissent Message-ID: More evidence that the BBC is desperate to stifle as much dissent as it can: > Organisers of tonight's televised British Academy Film Awards are braced for > the event to be overshadowed by celebrity attacks on British and American war > plans. > > 'Like Bafta, we want the event to stay a celebration of film,' said a BBC > spokeswoman. 'There will be time for slight editing before the event is > broadcast 'as live' on BBC1, but we have asked all recipients to be as brief > as possible with their speeches. When it comes to editing, we will be > concentrating on what is appropriate to the event.' I can't find details of the production staff.  If anyone else can, please circulate.  I have written to the BBC to ask them! In the meantime please write to complain to: You can comment on a story in the news via BBC News Online¹s Talking Point: www.bbc.co.uk/talkingpoint/ Complaints about the BBC website newsonline.complaints@bbc.co.uk You can comment on our programming, schedules, and more at the Points of View site: www.bbc.co.uk/pov/ *    You can send comments about any aspect of BBC Radio to the Radio 4 programme Feedback which airs your views and can put your questions to controllers and programme-makers: www.bbc.co.uk/radio/feedback/ *    Our messageboards allow you to share your opinions and feelings on a huge variety of topics and programmes with thousands of other users. A full list of topics is here: www.bbc.co.uk/messageboards/ *    General comments on BBC programming, scheduling and more can be sent via our information site: www.bbc.co.uk/info/contactus/ Full report from the Observer below. http://www.observer.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,901245,00.html Bafta braced for anti-war protests tonight Vanessa Thorpe, arts and media correspondent Sunday February 23, 2003 The Observer Organisers of tonight's televised British Academy Film Awards are braced for the event to be overshadowed by celebrity attacks on British and American war plans. 'Like Bafta, we want the event to stay a celebration of film,' said a BBC spokeswoman. 'There will be time for slight editing before the event is broadcast 'as live' on BBC1, but we have asked all recipients to be as brief as possible with their speeches. When it comes to editing, we will be concentrating on what is appropriate to the event.' Among stars lined up to present an award is Tim Robbins, the actor who spoke at last weekend's anti-war rally in London. Robbins, and his partner, the Oscar-winning Susan Sarandon, have a record of using awards events to make their views known. In 1992 they were banned 'for life' from the annual Oscar ceremony in Los Angeles when they denounced the US detention of Haitian immigrants. Film director Pedro Almodovar is also due to attend tonight. His film Talk To Her has been nominated in the foreign language category and, if he wins, he may use the occasion to criticise the Bush-Blair policy on Iraq. Speaking to crowds of up to a million anti-war protesters in Madrid last weekend, he said: 'The only preventive war is peace.' Jim Broadbent, star of Moulin Rouge and Iris, has been asked to present an award. He is a signatory to the stop-the-war petition. Actress Natascha McElhone, who stars in Solaris and will present an award, is thought to have strong views and is married to Martin Kelly, the plastic surgeon who founded the Facing the World Charity. Her co-star and friend George Clooney is not expected to attend the event tonight, but has made his views clear this weekend. Speaking to Sue Lawley on BBC Radio 4's Desert Island Discs this morning, he reveals he took part in last Saturday's anti-war march in Berlin. The Grammy music award ceremony, to be broadcast live from New York City, is worrying CBS bosses who fear at least one star plans a dramatic gesture. The microphone may be cut off on star performers, including Eminem, Sheryl Crow, Bruce Springsteen and James Taylor if they say anything deemed too political. At last week's Brits award show in London, George Michael and Ms Dynamite sang a new version of Michael's 1987 hit, Faith, and Ms Dynamite had the line: 'I don't want blood on my hands.' From david.miller at stir.ac.uk Mon Feb 24 12:03:03 2003 From: david.miller at stir.ac.uk (david Miller) Date: Thu Apr 1 12:43:37 2004 Subject: [Media-watch] complaining Message-ID: Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to complain that it is difficult to make a complaint to the relevant part of the BBC since there are no email addresses for particular programmes or most importantly there are no email addresses or even the names of the producers and editors of BBC shows. Can you either direct me to a source of information on the names of production staff associated with particular shows or see that such information is added to your site. In particular I would like to complain about the BBC apparent current penchant for censoring dissent about the possible war on Iraq. Please can you send me the contact details for the editor and producer of the BAFTA show from last night. thanks David Miller From david.miller at stir.ac.uk Mon Feb 24 12:11:29 2003 From: david.miller at stir.ac.uk (david Miller) Date: Thu Apr 1 12:43:37 2004 Subject: [Media-watch] Where to complain to British media Message-ID: from Media workers against the war: http://www.mwaw.org/article.php?sid=837 The anti-war movement in the UK incorporates an enormous cross-section of the population yet it is consistently marginalized in the British press. In November 2001, almost 100,000 people took to the streets of London to protest against our involvement in the US-led bombardment of Afghanistan, yet the action was miscounted, misquoted and ignored. If we allow falsifications to present themselves as fact in the national press, the "democracy" we so revere becomes a farce; "freedom of speech" becomes governmental dictation and spins out of control. Contact the media you consult, and those you don't, to condemn self-censorship and demand the truth be heard. Call or email the following The Broadcasting Standards Commision: To complain online click here Or write to them at: Broadcasting Standards commission, 7 The Sanctauary, London, SW1P 3JS The Press Complaints Commision: www.pcc.org.uk Guardian, home@guardian.co.uk" Telephone: 020 7278 2332 Guardian Unlimited, editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk Telephone: 020 7278 2332 Daily Mail, mailto:editor@dailymail.co.uk, Telephone 020 7938 6000 Independent, mailto:feedback@inuk.co.uk Telephone 020 7005 2000 The Metro, mail@ukmetro.co.uk, 020 7651 5200 The Evening Standard, letters@standard.co.uk, 020 7928 8000 The Mirror, feedback@mirror.co.uk, 020 7510 3000 Daily Express, letters@express.co.uk, Telephone 020 7928 8000 The Sun, letters@the-sun.co.uk Associated Press, Telephone 020 7353 1515 Daily Telegraph, dtletters@telegraph.co.uk, Telephone 020 7538 5000 The Times, letters@thetimes.co.uk BBC News (online), newsonline@bbc.co.uk BBC TV, info@bbc.co.uk, Telephone 08700 100 222 BBC Radio, info@bbc.co.uk, 08700 100 222 Radio 5, Telephone 0500 909 693 BBC World Service, worldservice.letters@bbc.co.uk, 020 7240 3456 Channel 4, viewerenquiries@channel4.co.uk Telephone 020 7306 8333 Channel 5, dutyoffice@channel5.co.uk, Telephone 020 7421 7100 Carlton Television, dutyoffice@carltontv.co.uk, Telephone 0121 643 9898 ITN, viewerliaison@itn.co.uk, Telephone 020 7833 3000 London Weekend, viewers@lwt.co.uk, Telephone 020 7620 1620 From david.miller at stir.ac.uk Mon Feb 24 15:38:26 2003 From: david.miller at stir.ac.uk (David Miller) Date: Thu Apr 1 12:43:38 2004 Subject: [Media-watch] The unseen gulf war Message-ID: <570E2BEE7BC5A34684EE5914FCFC368C0209B5F5@fillan.stir.ac.uk> for info http://www.wacc.org.uk/publications/action/250/unseen_war.html main index > action index 2003 > Peter Turnley The Unseen Gulf War As we all know, the military pool system created for Operation Desert Storm was meant to be, and was, a major impediment for photojournalists in their quest to communicate the realities of war (This fact does not diminish the great efforts, courage, and many important images created by many of my colleagues who participated in these pools.). Aside from that, while you would have a very difficult time finding an editor of an American publication today that wouldn't condemn this pool system and its restrictions during the Gulf War, most publications and television entities more or less bought the program before the war began (this reality has been far less discussed than the critiques of the pools themselves). I refused to participate in the pool system. I was in the Gulf for many weeks as the build-up of troops took place, and then sat out the "air war", and flew from Paris to Riyadh as soon as the ground war began. I arrived at the "mile of death" the morning the day the war stopped. It was very early in the morning and few other journalists were present. When I arrived at the scene of this incredible carnage, strewn all over on this mile stretch were cars and trucks with wheels still turning, radios still playing, and there were bodies scattered along the road. Many people have asked the question "how many people died" during the war with Iraq and the question has never been well answered. That first morning, I saw and photographed a U.S. Military 'graves detail' bury in large graves many bodies. I don't recall seeing many television images of the human consequences of this scene, or for that matter many photographs published. A day later, I came across another scene on an obscure road further north and to the east where, in the middle of the desert, I found a convoy of lorries transporting Iraqi soldiers back to Baghdad, where clearly massive fire power had been dropped and everyone in sight had been carbonized. Most of the photographs I made of this scene have never been published anywhere and this has always troubled me. As we approach the distinct possibility of another war, a thought comes to mind. The photographs that I made do not, in themselves, represent any personal political judgment or point of view with respect to the politics and the right or wrong of the first Gulf War. What they do represent is a part of a more accurate picture of what really does happen in war. I feel it is important and that citizens have the right to see these images. This is not to communicate my point of view, but so viewers as citizens can be offered a better opportunity to consider the whole picture and consequences of that war and any war. I feel that it is part of my role as a photojournalist to offer the viewer the opportunity to draw from as much information as possible, and develop his or her own judgment. This past war and any one looming, have often been treated as something akin to a 'Nintendo game'. This view conveniently obscures the vivid and often grotesque realities apparent to those directly involved in war. As a witness to the results of this past Gulf War, this televised, aerial, and technological version of the conflict is not what I saw and I'd like to present some images that I made that represent a more complete picture of what this conflict looked like. War is at best a necessary evil, and I am certain that anyone that feels differently has never experienced or been in it. I have always hoped that true images of conflict give one the opportunity to witness and reflect more fully on the full realities of war. After covering many conflicts around the world in past 20 years and witnessing much human suffering, I feel a responsibility to try to contribute to making sure with my images that no one that sees the brutal realities of conflict, ever feels that war is comfortable and/or convenient. I would like to propose that we discuss a portfolio of these difficult images now, as a future war in Iraq grows more likely every passing day. I look forward to hearing from you.. © Peter Turnley peterturnley@yahoo.com www.digitaljournalist.org Enter The Unseen Gulf War gallery on Digital Journalist www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/pt_intro.html From emma_miller at talk21.com Mon Feb 24 19:05:09 2003 From: emma_miller at talk21.com (Emma Miller) Date: Thu Apr 1 12:43:38 2004 Subject: [Media-watch] FW: [GSAW] Glasgow Uni Media Week 3 - 7 March In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Subject: [GSAW] Glasgow Uni Media Week 3 - 7 March Does anybody want to be involved with complaining at this "Media Week" event in Glasgow Uni. The BBC Scotland Controller will be there along with The Herald's editor and other journalists etc. Members of the media are coming to Glasgow University to meet students. They will give short talks about their careers and there will be opportunities to ask questions and speak to them at the end. Media Week is the 3rd to the 7th of March. All events, unless otherwise stated, will take place in the Williams Room - upstairs in the SRC John McIntyre Building, next to the Main Gate, The Timetable Monday 3rd March 10.00am- John McCormick - Contoller BBC Scotland 2pm- Stuart McHugh- Music Journalist and broadcaster. Editor - Is this Music? magazine Editor - The Jock Rock Website. Broadcaster on Radio Magnetic 4pm Mark Findlay- Programme Contoller - Beat 106  Adam Utyman - DJ -Beat 106 6pm Hunter Hall, Gilbert Scott Building Orange Index Debates - War against Drugs: Necessary Protection or Social Control Howard Marx (writer and former drug smuggler) Leslie Riddoch (BBC Scotland) Tuesday 4th March 2pm Mark Douglas Home -  Editor- The Herald Wednesday 5th March 11am Gail Hendrie - Producer - CBBC 1pm Greg Hemphill Comedian "Chewin' the fat" "Still Game"  Michael Hines - Director - "Still Game" Thursday 6th March 2pm - Aziz Rasid - BBC Breakfast News 4pm Hannah McGill - Features Writer and Film Critic - The Herald Friday 7th March 11am Mark Coyle - BBC Online 2pm Alan Morrison - Empire Magazine 4pm Richard Melvin - Producer - Radio Scotland There will be printed timetables available from the SRC reception upstairs in the John McIntyre Building. For more info e mail vp-comms@src.gla.ac.uk Protect your PC from e-mail viruses.  Get MSN 8 today.   Yahoo! Groups Sponsor   ADVERTISEMENT To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: GSAW-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service . From david.miller at stir.ac.uk Mon Feb 24 19:14:04 2003 From: david.miller at stir.ac.uk (david Miller) Date: Thu Apr 1 12:43:40 2004 Subject: [Media-watch] FW: Blair's Betrayal - Part 3 (repeat sending) In-Reply-To: <200302241257.h1OCv0x28727@scarab.giga-sj-001.net> Message-ID: ---------- From: MediaLens Media Alerts Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 12:57:00 UT To: Friend Subject: Blair's Betrayal - Part 3 (repeat sending) It appears that a large number of subscribers didn't receive this mailing last week. Here it is again... Best wishes The Editors - 24.2.03 MEDIA LENS: Correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media February 19, 2003 MEDIA ALERT: BLAIR'S BETRAYAL - PART 3 The Moral Case For War Introduction - Passionately 'Sincere' Truth Reversal In Parts 1 and 2 of this three-part Media Alert, we showed the dramatic extent to which Tony Blair has attempted to deceive the British public on Iraq. In an earlier Media Alert (February 3, 2003), we described how Blair had changed his stated justification for waging war on Iraq at least five times: 1. Proven Iraqi complicity in the September 11 attacks. 2. Iraqi refusal to readmit UN weapons inspectors. 3. Discovery of undeclared Iraqi WMD by weapons inspectors. 4. Proven Iraqi links with terrorist organisations. 5. Iraqi failure to be sufficiently 'proactive' in cooperating with UN weapons inspectors (regardless of whether WMD are found). To this list must now be added a sixth, 'moral' argument. In a recent speech Blair said: "But the moral case against war has a moral answer: it is the moral case for removing Saddam... Yes, there are consequences of war. If we remove Saddam by force, people will die, and some will be innocent. And we must live with the consequences of our actions, even the unintended ones. But there are also consequences of 'stop the war'. There will be no march for the victims of Saddam, no protests about the thousands of children that die needlessly every year under his rule, no righteous anger over the torture chambers which if he is left in power, will remain in being..." ('The price of my conviction', The Observer, February 16, 2003) One might almost imagine that Blair's latest resort to a 'moral' case is an attempt at black humour. In reality there have of course been any number of protests about "the thousands of children that die needlessly every year" in Iraq. We at Media Lens have ourselves participated in demonstrations outside Downing Street. Moreover, these protests have been directed not at the Iraqi regime but at the British government. Blair's mention of needless Iraqi deaths is a reference to the mass death of children under sanctions reported by the UN, human rights groups and aid agencies. In a recent Newsnight interview Blair argued that "because of the way he [Saddam] implements those sanctions" they are "actually a pretty brutal policy against the Iraqi people". (BBC2, Newsnight Special, February 6, 2003) Though you wouldn't know it from the media's response to Blair's claim, this assertion has been dismissed by the very people who set up and ran the sanctions programme in Iraq. To glance even briefly at the facts is to find that Blair is once again employing his favoured strategy - passionately 'sincere' truth reversal. Effectively Terminated - The US/UK Genocide In Iraq To understand the impact of sanctions, we need to recognise the scale of the destruction wreaked on Iraq by the 88,500 tons of allied bombs dropped during the Gulf War. Eric Hoskins, a Canadian doctor and coordinator of a Harvard study team, reported that the allied bombardment "effectively terminated everything vital to human survival in Iraq - electricity, water, sewage systems, agriculture, industry and health care". (Quoted, Mark Curtis, 'The Ambiguities of Power - British Foreign Policy since 1945', Zed Books, 1995, pp.189-190) The restriction of resources as a result of sanctions has made the large-scale reconstruction of this infrastructure impossible. In March 1999 an expert 'Humanitarian Panel' convened by the Security Council concluded the UN's 'oil-for-food' programme could not meet the needs of the Iraqi people, "regardless of the improvements that might be brought about in the implementation of" the relief programme. (Quoted, Voices in the Wilderness website, March 2002: www.viwuk.freeserve.co.uk) The Panel continued: "Regardless of the improvements that might be brought about - in terms of approval procedures, better performance by the Iraqi Government, or funding levels - the magnitude of the humanitarian needs is such that they cannot be met within the context of [the oil-for-food programme]... Nor was the programme intended to meet all the needs of the Iraqi people... Given the present state of the infrastructure, the revenue required for its rehabilitation is far above the level available under the programme." (ibid) Their conclusion: "The humanitarian situation in Iraq will continue to be a dire one in the absence of a sustained revival of the Iraqi economy which in turn cannot be achieved solely through remedial humanitarian efforts." Nevertheless, the British and US Governments have continued to claim that mass death in Iraq is the result, not of wrecked infrastructure, lack of funds, and an economy stalled by sanctions, but is the responsibility of an Iraqi regime that has cruelly withheld foodstuffs and medicines from its own people. In March 2000, we asked former UN Assistant Secretary-General, Denis Halliday - who set up and ran the UN's 'oil for food' programme in Iraq - if there was any truth in the US/UK governments' assertion that Saddam had blocked the benefits of 'oil for food'. We quoted a letter by Peter Hain, Minister of State, to the New Statesman in 2000. Hain wrote: "The 'oil for food' programme has been in place for three years... The Iraqi people have never seen the benefits they should have." This was Halliday's response: "There's no basis for that assertion at all. The Secretary-General has reported repeatedly that there is no evidence that food is being diverted by the government in Baghdad. We have 150 observers on the ground in Iraq. Say a wheat shipment comes in from god knows where, in Basra, they follow the grain to some of the mills, they follow the flour to the 49,000 agents that the Iraqi government employs for this programme, then they follow the flour to the recipients and even interview some of the recipients - there is no evidence of diversion of foodstuffs whatever +ever+ in the last two years. The Secretary-General would have reported that." (David Edwards, Interview with Denis Halliday, March 2000, www.medialens.org) We asked Halliday about the issue of medical supplies. In January 1999, George Robertson, then defence secretary, had said, "Saddam Hussein has in warehouses $275 million worth of medicines and medical supplies which he refuses to distribute." Halliday responded: "We have had problems with medical drugs and supplies, there have been delays there. There are several good reasons for that. One is that often the Iraqi government did some poor contracting; so they contracted huge orders - $5 million of aspirins or something - to some small company that simply couldn't do the job and had to re-tool and wasted three, four, five months maybe. So that was the first round of mistakes. But secondly, the Sanctions Committee weighed in and they would look at a package of contracts, maybe ten items, and they would deliberately approve nine but block the tenth, knowing full well that without the tenth item the other nine were of no use. Those nine then go ahead - they're ordered, they arrive - and are stored in warehouses; so naturally the warehouses have stores that cannot in fact be used because they're waiting for other components that are blocked by the Sanctions Committee." We asked Halliday what he thought the motive was behind blocking the one item out of ten: "Because Washington, and to a lesser extent London, have deliberately played games through the Sanctions Committee with this programme for years - it's a deliberate ploy. For the British Government to say that the quantities involved for vaccinating kids are going to produce weapons of mass destruction, this is just nonsense. That's why I've been using the word 'genocide', because this is a deliberate policy to destroy the people of Iraq. I'm afraid I have no other view at this late stage." The British government claims that Saddam is using the money from the 'oil for food' programme for anything other than food. Peter Hain, for example, stated: "Over $8 billion a year should be available to Iraq for the humanitarian programme - not only for foods and medicines, but also clean water, electricity and educational material. No one should starve." Halliday responded: "Of the $20 billion that has been provided through the 'oil for food' programme, about a third, or $7 billion, has been spent on UN 'expenses', reparations to Kuwait and assorted compensation claims. That leaves $13 billion available to the Iraqi government. If you divide that figure by the population of Iraq, which is 22 million, it leave some $190 per head of population per year over 3 years - that is pitifully inadequate." Both Halliday and his successor Hans von Sponeck resigned from long careers with the UN insisting that Western sanctions policy was "genocidal" - resignations that were unprecedented in the UN at such a senior level - but the media almost completely ignored them. Last time we checked, Halliday, for example, had never been mentioned in the Observer. Blair can make his outrageous case for a 'moral war' now because journalists have long ignored reports from groups like Save the Children Fund UK, which has described the economic sanctions against Iraq as "a silent war against Iraq's children". (Quoted, Voices in the Wilderness UK, March 2002: www.viwuk.freeserve.co.uk) The Catholic Relief Agency, CAFOD, has described the sanctions as "humanly catastrophic, morally indefensible and politically ineffective. They are a failed policy and must be changed". (Milan Rai, War On Iraq, Verso, 2002, p.175) Human Rights Watch has said: "the continued imposition of comprehensive economic sanctions is undermining the basic rights of children and the civilian population generally" and "the [Security] Council must recognise that the sanctions have contributed in a major way to persistent life-threatening conditions in the country". (August 2000, www.viwuk.freeserve.co.uk) Seventy members of the US Congress signed a letter to President Clinton, appealing to him to lift the embargo and end what they called "infanticide masquerading as policy". (Quoted, Philadelphia Enquirer, April 1, 1999) John and Karl Mueller stated in the journal Foreign Affairs in May-June 1999 that the "sanctions of mass destruction" imposed by Clinton and Blair, had up to that point killed more civilians in Iraq than "all the weapons of mass destruction in human history". ('Liberal Apologetics For Imperialism: Paul Starr And The American Prospect On Clinton's Foreign Policy', Edward Herman, ZNet, November 21, 2000) With the wholehearted complicity of the media, the US and UK governments have been able to blame the Iraqi regime for the suffering. The BBC's Ben Brown has said: "He [Saddam] claims UN sanctions have reduced many of his citizens to near starvation - pictures like these [of a malnourished baby and despairing mother] have been a powerful propaganda weapon for Saddam, which he'll now have to give up." (Ben Brown, BBC News, June 20, 1996) ITN's John Draper: "The idea now is targeted or 'smart' sanctions to help ordinary people while at the same time preventing the Iraqi leader from blaming the West for the hardships they're suffering." (John Draper, ITN, 10:30 News, February 20, 2001) The Observer's Nick Cohen: "I look forward to seeing how Noam Chomsky and John Pilger manage to oppose a war which would end the sanctions they claim have slaughtered hundreds of thousands of children who otherwise would have had happy, healthy lives in a prison state (don't fret, they'll get there)." ('Blair's just a Bush baby', The Observer, March 10, 2002) The 'claim', as we have seen, is not Chomsky's or Pilger's at all. The media has been less accurate and honest even than Blair in claiming that the mass death of Iraqi children is a fabrication. The Guardian's David Leigh and James Wilson, for example, described the evidence of mass death in Iraq as merely a "statistical construct" and "atrocity propaganda". ('Counting Iraq's victims - Dead babies always figure heavily in atrocity propaganda, and Osama bin Laden is merely the latest to exploit them. But what is the truth?' The Guardian, October 10, 2001) The Observer declared: "The Iraqi dictator says his country's children are dying in their thousands because of the West's embargoes. John Sweeney, in a TV documentary to be shown tonight, says the figures are bogus." (Sweeney, 'How Saddam 'staged' fake baby funerals', The Observer, June 23, 2002) In his Observer article, Sweeney cited and dismissed one of the many sources of credible evidence of mass death: "In 1999 Unicef, in co-operation with the Iraqi government, made a retrospective projection of 500,000 excess child deaths in the 1990s. The projection is open to question. It was based on data from within a regime that tortures children with impunity. All but one of the researchers used by Unicef were employees of the Ministry of Health, according to the Lancet." We asked Hans von Sponeck, who ran the UN's 'oil for food' programme in Iraq, what he thought of Sweeney's argument. This was his response: "Sweeney's article is exactly the kind of journalism that is Orwellian, double-speak. No doubt, the Iraq Government has manipulated data to suit its own purposes, everyone of the protagonists unfortunately does this. A journalist should not. UNICEF has used large numbers of international researchers and applied sophisticated methods to get these important figures. Yes, the Ministry of Health personnel cooperated with UNICEF but ultimately it was UNICEF and UNICEF alone which carried out the data analysis exactly because they did not want to politicise their work... This article is a very serious misrepresentation." (Email to Media Lens Editors, June 24, 2002) No one would deny that Saddam Hussein is a brutal and oppressive dictator, but claims made by the government and media that Iraqis have always experienced current levels of suffering under Saddam are not borne out by the facts. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit's Country Report for Iraq, prior to the imposition of sanctions the Iraqi welfare state was "among the most comprehensive and generous in the Arab world". (Iraq: Country Report 1995-96) In a December 1999 report the International Committee of the Red Cross noted: "Just a decade ago, Iraq boasted one of the most modern infrastructures and highest standards of living in the Middle East", with a "modern, complex health care system" and "sophisticated water-treatment and pumping facilities." (ICRC, 'Iraq: A Decade of Sanctions', December 1999) In 1996, the Centre for Economic and Social Rights reported of pre-Gulf War Iraq: "Over 90% of the population had access to primary health-care, including laboratory diagnosis and immunisations for childhood diseases such as polio and diphtheria. During the 1970s and 80s, British and Japanese companies built scores of large, modern hospitals throughout Iraq, with advanced technologies for diagnosis, operations and treatment. Secondary and tertiary services, including surgical care and laboratory investigative support, were available to most of the Iraqi population at nominal charges. Iraqi medical and nursing schools emphasised education of women and attracted students from throughout the Middle East. A majority of Iraqi physicians were trained in Europe or the United States, and one-quarter were board-certified specialists." (UN Sanctioned Suffering, May 1996 www.cesr.org) The situation in Iraq under sanctions could not be more different. Richard Garfield, a renowned epidemiologist at Colombia University in New York, concluded that "most" excess child deaths between August 1990 and March 1998 were "primarily associated with sanctions". (Garfield, 'Morbidity and Mortality Among Iraqi Children from 1990 Through 1998: Assessing the Impact of the Gulf War and Economic Sanctions', March 1999) Garfield noted that, in tripling since 1990, the death rate of children in Iraq is unique, as "there is almost no documented case of rising mortality for children under five years in the modern world". (John Mueller and Karl Mueller, 'The Methodology of Mass Destruction: Assessing Threats in the New World Order', The Journal of Strategic Studies, vol.23, no.1, 2000, pp.163-87) These facts are utterly banished by a media system which understands that the demonisation of Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime is vital for justifying war. Also missing is even the tiniest hint that London and Washington are responsible for the deaths of more than a million people in Iraq - the same people that Blair and Bush are now seeking to 'liberate'. Blair is right that sanctions are a brutal policy - they have exacerbated problems rooted in the Gulf War smashing of Iraqi infrastructure and have prevented the Iraqi economy from recovering. The solution is not to smash more Iraqi infrastructure in another assault designed to generate "Shock and Awe" on a traumatised Third World country already shocked and awed by suffering. The information above highlights two central features of modern politics: 1) The extraordinary willingness of politicians to deceive and manipulate the public, even to the extent of reversing the truth. 2) The vital role of the establishment media in suppressing truth and covering up Western atrocities. It seems clear to us that if we are to seriously challenge the deceptiveness of the political system, then we must also challenge the deceptiveness of the media. Challenging the media is not merely an optional extra, it is fundamental to releasing the state-corporate stranglehold on public awareness, and so on public opinion, and so on democracy. A Further Note On Blair In 1999 Blair declared a "new internationalism" where "the brutal repression of whole ethnic groups will no longer be tolerated". (Quoted, Noam Chomsky, The New Military Humanism, Common Courage Press, 1999, p.3) Literally weeks later, Blair remained silent as Britain's Indonesian business partner continued its genocide in East Timor, destroying 70% of all public and private buildings, and herding 75% of the population across the border into West Timorese militia-controlled camps, where hostage taking, killings and sexual assault were daily occurrences. The slaughter was in revenge for the Timorese vote for independence in the August 30 referendum, and was the final act in a bloodbath that claimed more than 200,000 East Timorese lives over 25 years. About this (and the killings from January 1999 onwards), Blair and the rest of the Nato 'moral crusaders' had nothing to say. Indonesian historian John Roosa, an official observer of the referendum, reported: "Given that the pogrom was so predictable, it was easily preventable... But in the weeks before the ballot, the Clinton Administration refused to discuss with Australia and other countries the formation of [an international force]. Even after the violence erupted, the Administration dithered for days." (Quoted, New York Times, September 15, 1999) Mary Robinson, the UN commissioner for human rights, wrote at the time: "The awful abuses committed in East Timor have shocked the world. It is hard to conceive of a more blatant assault on the rights of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. For a time it seemed the world would turn away altogether from the people of East Timor, turn away from the plain evidence of the brutality, killings and rapes. Action, when it came, was painfully slow; thousands paid with their lives for the world's slow response. It was the tide of public anger that stirred world leaders to intervene, however belatedly, on behalf of the East Timorese." (Robinson, 'We can end this agony', The Guardian, October 23, 1999) One further example can help us to understand the sincerity of Blair's 'moral' case for war. In explaining his reasons for bombing Serbia in 1999, Blair declared: "The principle of non-interference [in other countries' affairs] must be qualified in important respects." Sovereignty was all very well; but war crimes, acts of genocide and serious violations of human rights "can never be an internal matter". (Quoted the Guardian, March 15, 2000) One year later, Blair said of the murderous war unleashed by Russia against the civilian population of Chechnya: "Well, they have been taking their action for the reasons they've set out because of the terrorism that has happened in Chechnya. We've been calling for restraint in the Russian action, but this is a fight that has been going on - a civil war within Russia." (ibid) SUGGESTED ACTION The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. In writing letters to journalists, we strongly urge readers to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone. Write to Alan Rusbridger, Guardian editor: Email: alan.rusbridger@guardian.co.uk Write to Simon Kelner, editor of the Independent: Email: s.kelner@independent.co.uk Write to Roger Alton, editor of the Observer: Email: roger.alton@observer.co.uk Write to Richard Sambrook, BBC director of news: Email: richard.sambrook@bbc.co.uk Write to Jonathan Munro, head of ITN newsgathering: Email: jonathan.munro@itn.co.uk Write to BBC's Newsnight programme: Email: newsnight@bbc.co.uk SAMPLE LETTER: Why are you not drawing attention to the hypocrisy of Blair's 'moral case for war'? Are you aware that the UN and aid agencies have reported that sanctions, not the Iraqi regime, are responsible for the mass death of civilians in Iraq under sanctions? In March 1999 an expert 'Humanitarian Panel' convened by the Security Council concluded on the UN's 'oil-for-food' programme: "Regardless of the improvements that might be brought about - in terms of approval procedures, better performance by the Iraqi Government, or funding levels - the magnitude of the humanitarian needs is such that they cannot be met within the context of [the oil-for-food programme]... Nor was the programme intended to meet all the needs of the Iraqi people... Given the present state of the infrastructure, the revenue required for its rehabilitation is far above the level available under the programme." Former UN Assistant Secretary-General, Denis Halliday, who set up and ran the UN's 'oil for food' programme, has said: "Washington, and to a lesser extent London, have deliberately played games through the Sanctions Committee with this programme for years - it's a deliberate ploy... That's why I've been using the word 'genocide', because this is a deliberate policy to destroy the people of Iraq. I'm afraid I have no other view at this late stage." Please copy all your letters to editor@medialens.org Feel free to respond to Media Lens alerts: editor@medialens.org Visit the Media Lens website: http://www.medialens.org To unsubscribe: http://www.medialens.org/cgi/swm/swmlist.cgi?mode=r&a=media&e=david.miller@s tir.ac.uk From david.miller at stir.ac.uk Mon Feb 24 22:23:18 2003 From: david.miller at stir.ac.uk (david Miller) Date: Thu Apr 1 12:43:40 2004 Subject: [Media-watch] moving on/ detecting bias In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Darren, this sounds like a good suggestion. I think tat both ideas are good. It seems to me that we should be trying to complain as much as possible about the lack of representation of the anti war case on the media. On special investigations: One thing which seems to me to be left out is an acknowledgement that the US and UK governments are engaged in a propaganda campaign. This could be discussed openly with examples from the history of propaganda. Any other suggestions? David > From: Darren Smith {Psych} > Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 11:59:09 -0000 > To: David Miller , "'media-watch@lists.stir.ac.uk '" > > Subject: RE: [Media-watch] moving on/ detecting bias > > I was wondering whether we could have media campaign themes, or issues, > that we could get others new to media activism to get involved with. I.e., > what simple changes to the media could we collectively campaign for, and > make it easy for others new to this to get involved? > > E.g., maybe we could start a campaign to get Newsnight or some other regular > interview show to get prominent left wingers on TV. Maybe we could campaign > for investigations on special issues etc. It would then be easy to write up > a web page or pamphet about such a campaign, and then suggest example > letters that could be written, and to whom they should be sent, etc. > > Just a thought. > > Darren > > -----Original Message----- > From: david Miller > To: media-watch@lists.stir.ac.uk > Sent: 21/02/2003 10:25 > Subject: [Media-watch] moving on/ detecting bias > > Dear all, > > we had a small meeting last night to discuss moving the media watch idea > on. We agreed to plan an extended meeting with a video showing on media > and propaganda in war and possibly a couple of speakers (including one > or two journalists), followed by a workshop on how to identify bias and > how to complain. Anyone who can help with this, please get in touch. > > Below is a list of (US) resources on detecting bias. I will circulate > more as I come across them. In other emails I will circulate a list of > contact details for the Scottish media. We decided that an immediate > priority was to produce a laminated media watch card with emails and > phone numbers for the main Scottish and UK news outlets so that people > can complain whenever they get annoyed by the latest piece of > spin/distortion. > > The media are in a quandary just now, because they can see that there is > massive opposition to the war, but the political establishment is so out > of kilter. They are so used to speaking to 'experts' and political > leaders that they haven't got much of an idea about how to cover mass > dissent. In this climate it is all the more important that as many > people as possible complain about distortions and omissions. > > Let's try and use this list as a means of encouraging people to complain > for themselves.... > > I will be in touch again soon. > > David > > > Detecting bias in the news: > > How to Detect Bias in the News > http://www.media-awareness.ca/eng/med/class/teamedia/peace/bias7.htm > > Detecting Bias in the News > http://faculty.washington.edu/~jalbano/bias.html > > Recognising bias and distortion in television news programs > http://hsc.csu.edu.au/pta/scansw/bias.htm > > The Media Bias Detector (adapted from the book Unreliable Sources: A > Guide to Detecting Bias in the News) > http://www.adamranson.freeserve.co.uk/fair%20media%20bias%20detector%20. > PDF > > FAIR¹s Media Activism Kit http://www.fair.org/activism/activismkit.html > > Citizens and the Media: Fact, Opinion, Bias > http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/education/teachers/strategies/19 > 98/Plan33e.htm > > Topic: September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks on the World Trade Center > and the Pentagon Deconstructing Images From the Media > http://www.mit.edu/cms/reconstructions/education/audiofoot.html > > Topic: The Gulf War A Lesson in Media Literacy > http://www.newsworld.cbc.ca/flashback/1991/gulfclass.html > > > _______________________________________________ > Media-watch mailing list > Media-watch@lists.stir.ac.uk > http://lists.stir.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/media-watch > -- > The University of Stirling is a university established in Scotland by > charter at Stirling, FK9 4LA. Privileged/Confidential Information may > be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated > in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such > person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone > and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is > prohibited and may be unlawful. In such case, you should destroy this > message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise > immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email > for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other > information in this message that do not relate to the official > business of the University of Stirling shall be understood as neither > given nor endorsed by it. > From hmccubbin at tinyworld.co.uk Thu Feb 27 09:36:01 2003 From: hmccubbin at tinyworld.co.uk (Henry McCubbin) Date: Thu Apr 1 12:43:42 2004 Subject: [Media-watch] Fw: from Ken Coates Message-ID: <000a01c2de43$46fc2520$2e104e51@HenryMcCubbin> Dear All, I thought that you might be interested in the following exchange initiated by the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation. Regards Henry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anthony Simpson" Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 2:12 PM Subject: from Ken Coates Dear Friend, I thought you might be interested to see this exchange about the censoring of the Iraqi Declaration on Weapons of Mass Destruction submitted in December in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1441. Of course, the Declaration is central to the second UN draft resolution in the name of the United Kingdom, United States and Spain, proposed on 24 February, which reads: "noting that Iraq has submitted a declaration pursuant to its resolution 1441 containing false statements and omissions." It seems to me that many serious questions remain unresolved. Might you be able to raise this matter in some way? With every good wish. Yours sincerely, Ken Coates Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation ***** Dossier Letters published in the The Times from Ken Coates and Llew Smith MP Letter from Hans von Sponeck Exchange With Joschka Fischer, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Germany Exchange with Anna Lindh, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sweden *** LETTERS PUBLISHED IN THE TIMES February 26, 2003 Implications of weapons dossier cuts >From Professor Ken Coates Sir, In his response to my letter published on February 13, Llew Smith, MP (letter, February 18), throws a further interesting light on the suppression of two thirds of the Iraqi dossier on weapons of mass destruction which was submitted to the United Nations on December 7. However, I have recently received more informative letters from the Swedish Foreign Secretary and from Hans von Sponeck, the former Assistant Secretary-General to the UN who resigned in protest at UN policy in 2000, who is glad that this matter has now emerged into the public domain. On December 7 the presidency of the Security Council was held by Colombia. I understand that the United States deployed all the arts of persuasion to ensure that Colombia yielded up the Iraqi dossier on the implausible pretext that the Americans had superior photocopying facilities to those which were available in the United Nations Secretariat. I still have not been able to elicit precise information about how the suppression of so much of the dossier was decided. But there is a more serious matter. Both the British and Swedish Foreign Offices agree that the permanent members of the Security Council were involved in transferring to Unmovic and the IAEA the decision about what to excise. But the Swedish Foreign Minister registers the opinion that the Security Council cannot risk having an A team and a B team, one of which is informed, and the other not. Certainly the permanent members have a special status in respect of voting, but they have no constitutionally valid special status in terms of access to information, or rights to withhold inconvenient information from their colleagues. This raises a vital principle. As Hans von Sponeck writes in his letter to me: It is not only a case of unacceptable differential treatment of permanent and non-permanent members of the UN Security Council, it is also a challenge to the neutrality of the UN Secretariat. Yours sincerely, KEN COATES (Chairman), The Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation, Russell House, Bulwell Lane, Nottingham NG6 0BT, February 25 *** February 18, 2003 >From Mr Llew Smith, MP for Blaenau Gwent (Labour) Sir, Professor Ken Coates asks (letter, February 13th) who authorised the deletion of 8,000 pages of Iraq's original declaration to the United Nations last December, prior to its distribution to non-permanent UN Security Council members. I asked the Foreign Secretary about this removal of information in a written question, to which I received the following reply from junior Foreign Office Minister, Denis MacShane: The President of the UN Security Council decided that the Iraqi Declaration should first be given to [permanent] members of the Security Council with the expertise to assess the risks of proliferation. UNMOVIC and the IAEA will judge what material needs to be excised before it distributes the declaration to all Security Council members (Hansard, December 17, 2002, col.764W). While I can accept the sensitivity of some of the details in the Iraqi declaration, which could contain information on how to make certain weapons of mass destruction, I do not accept that the diplomatic delegations of member states of the United Nations Security Council would be unable to keep confidential information that should remain so. I prefer the suggestion made at the time (report, December 12) that the Iraqi declaration named US and UK suppliers to Iraq's military programme that our Governments did not want made public, as it would show direct complicity in building up Saddam's weapons arsenal. Yours sincerely, LLEW SMITH House of Commons February 13. *** February 13, 2003 Weapons declaration >From Professor Ken Coates Sir, Jack Straw claims that Iraq's declaration about its weapons of mass destruction, submitted to the United Nations in December, "was neither full, accurate, nor complete" (Comment, February 5). The elected members of the United Nations Security Council will have to take Mr Straw's word for it, since we understand that more than 8,000 of the declaration's 11,800 pages were omitted when it was circulated to them. The full dossier was given to the United Nations and transported to New York, where by some mechanism it came into the hands of the United States Administration, which promised to copy it for members of the Security Council. In the event, two thirds of the declaration were withheld from the ten non-permanent members. I wrote to these members asking whether British press reports on these matters were true (an inquiry to the office of the Secretary-General had produced no response). The current President of the Security Council, Joschka Fischer, confirmed these facts. In a letter dated Monday, February 3, his office writes: "The facts of the case as you present them are correct. In fact the Iraqi statement of around 12,000 pages of 8th December was given in full only to the five permanent members of the Security Council." Who authorised this substantial deletion? Yours sincerely, KEN COATES (Chairman), Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation, ******* LETTER FROM HANS VON SPONECK Dear Professor Coates, The seriousness of the 'dossier incident' indeed has been overlooked by media and others because of the speed with which the Iraq crisis is evolving. It remains nevertheless a most serious issue which is unique in the history of relations between the UN Secretariat and an individual member government. It is not only a case of unacceptable differential treatment of permanent and non-permanent members of the UN Security Council, it is also a challenge to the neutrality of the UN Secretariat. When the broader issue is about war or peace the behaviour of the US Government becomes even more unacceptable. One government insists on a privileged position through premature acquisition of a key document. This in fact reduces the UN to being a tool to a member state. I am grateful that you are raising this matter, Yours, Hans von Sponeck ***** EXCHANGE WITH JOSCHKA FISCHER, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, GERMANY 31 December 2002 Dear Foreign Minister, As was widely reported in the press, The Iraqi Government prepared an 11800 page dossier on its role in relation to weapons of mass destruction. We understand that this dossier was given to the UN and transported to New York, where by some mechanism on which we are not completely clear, it came into the hands of the United States administration, which promised to copy it for members of the Security Council. It has been reported in the British p ress that in fact the non! -permanent members of the Security Council were given more than 8000 pages fewer than the number which were submitted originally by the Iraqi Government. Is this true? Can you tell us what explanation has been offered for the decision to furnish less than full information about the operation of resolution 1441 to members of the Security Council? How is it expected that you can play a full part in the deliberations which are to come, if you are not in possession of all the evidence? Since questions of peace and war will be at stake, do you not think that it is obligatory that all members of the Security Council should, by right, receive all relevant information on the subjects to be decided? Yours sincerely, Ken Coates *** Dear Professor Coates Many thanks for your letter of 31st December to the Federal German Foreign Minister Herr Joschka Fischer who has asked me to reply to you, The facts of the case as you pres ent them are correct. In ! fact the Iraqi statement of around 12,000 pages of 8th December was given in full only to the 5 permanent members of the Security Council. At this point in time the Federal Republic of Germany was not a member of the security council. As you know, our temporary membership (of the security council) began on the 1st January. The circumstances of the distribution of documents to the 15 members of the Security Council was a decision of the former chair of the security council, Columbia. I can imagine that the Columbian diplomatic representatives at the United Nations in New York are in a better position to answer your, in my opinion, very valid question, in regard to the reasons for the particular modality of document distribution that took place at that time. Once again, many thanks for your letter. I ask for your understanding that I've replied in German. With friendly greetings and best wishes for your work Writing as instructed Dr Ingo Winkelmann ****** EXCHANGE WITH ANNA LINDH, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, SWEDEN 5 February 2003 Dear Professor Coates, You are indeed correct in assuming that Iraq has taken much of my time these last few months. Iraq remains an issue high on the EU agenda, an! d it is of course also an important issue on the Swedish domestic political scene. As for the latter, I am glad to note the political support my Government has received from most other Swedish parties for our position which, as you know, emphasizes the need for a peaceful solution to the conflict, letting the inspectors fulfil their mandate, and keeping the UN Security Council in control of the process. I do agree when you, in your letter, state that the administrative conduct of the United Nations should be beyond reproach. I do not, however, agree with your description of how the Iraqi declaration was handled by the Security Council, UNMOVIC and the IAEA. The Iraqi declaration was addressed to UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and they received one original set each. After Council consultations it was decided that the five permanent members should receive a copy of the declaration in full, in order to be able to advise UNMOVIC and the IAEA on what parts could possibly be e! dited out of the declaration. For logistical reasons, the permanent five agreed to let the copying be done by the USA. UNMOVIC then received advice and suggestions from the permanent five, but the final edited version of the declaration is the work of UNMOVIC itself. I understand there were no differences between UNMOVIC, the IAEA and the permanent five on what parts should be taken out. The 8,000 pages that were taken out are supportive documents, containing technical information, which Iraq at earlier stages had already submitted to the inspectors and to the Council. These 8,000 pages are available on request to the non-permanent members of the Council (I understand that no such request has yet been made to UNMOVIC or the IAEA). I am therefore satisfied that the handling of the declaration was made in a way that ensured that UNMOVIC and the IAEA had unrestricted and uncontrolled access to the declaration. That is, in this case, the most important aspect of the process. Not having taken part of the declaration myself, I cannot comment on the need to edit it. I have, however, for the sake of non-proliferation, an understanding of the need not to unnecessarily circulate information that could be used by others in order to gain information, for example, technical information about nuclear weaponry. As for the handling of the declaration in the Council, we are concerned by the criticism made by Norway and others, that it showed that the Council risked being divided into an 'A-team' and a 'B-team'. This is serious, and we should make sure that the Iraqi declaration is a unique case, and does not set a precedent. Yours sincerely, Anna Lindh *** Mrs Anna Lindh Minister for Foreign Affairs Sweden 13th February, 2003 Dear Mrs Lindh, I am very grateful for the trouble you have taken to respond to my e nquiry about the handling of the Iraqi declaration by the Security Council, UNMOVIC and the IAEA. Yours is the most detailed description of events that I have been able to elicit, and I do very much appreciate your kindness in spelling it out. I had previously received a letter from the German Foreign Ministry, on the instructions of Joschka Fischer, which confirmed "the facts of the case as you present them are correct". As you will see, I quoted this in my recent letter to The Times, publication of which was slightly delayed whilst they made their own independent enquiries. But your letter presents the matter in a different light. Of course, Germany only joined the Security Council after these events had already taken place, and so it is understandable that some misunderstandings could arise, especially in a complex case like this one. However, at least part of the difficulty arises from the letter of the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Iraq to the United Nations, dated 7th Decemb! er 2002. This letter is addressed to Mr. Alfonso Valdivisco, the Colombian UN Ambassador, who was President of the Security Council at the time. I enclose a copy, which, I am sorry to say, is not very readable. It says that the declarations required of Iraq are "contained in" the letter. Does this mean that there were, in fact, two copies, one of which went to the Colombian President, and the other of which was split between the two relevant inspectorates? I ask you this question because we received a journalistic account of various alleged pressures which were said to have been brought to bear on Colombia by the Americans. Of course, I would like to set the record straight, and to inform The Times newspaper about what you have said, and also, as a courtesy, to inform Joschka Fischer. It has been precisely because I agree with you and the Norwegians that an "A-team" and "B-team" are incompatible with good governance that I have bee n anxious to get to the b! ottom of this affair. It is my understanding that the Irish Government shares this conviction. I am very pleased that you uphold an identical view. I very much fear that war may break out whatever happens in the Security Council, although of course I hope that wiser counsels will prevail. It seems to me that a very large majority of Europe's peoples would refer to take the Swedish road, had they only got the opportunity so to do. With my respect and very good wishes. Yours sincerely, Ken Coates Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation ******* From david.miller at stir.ac.uk Thu Feb 27 12:14:39 2003 From: david.miller at stir.ac.uk (david Miller) Date: Thu Apr 1 12:43:43 2004 Subject: [Media-watch] FW: Eye to Eye In-Reply-To: Message-ID: for info - a conciliatory complaint! But more evidence of the divorce of the BBC from reality ---------- From: david Miller Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:12:43 +0000 To: Douglas MacLeod Cc: Subject: Re: Eye to Eye Dear Douglas, thanks for your reply. On the computer crashing, I felt I had to check formally with you about that, without assuming a conspiracy! On the substance of your reply, can I offer a comment, which is meant constructively. In the current climate, it is clear that there is overwhelming public opposition to war. It is also clear that this mood is not well reflected in the political establishment (take the vote in the commons last night where the opposition was about a third - most polls are showing between 70-90% public opposition - contrary to John Reid's rather audacious attempt to suggest that only 25% oppose war). this means that interviewing across the range of a political establishment badly adrift from the public is by definition not going to cover the debate properly. So when I read your list of interviewees I am struck by how closely they mirror the contours of the political establishment. It is good that you have had some voices opposing war on, but the question which arises is to what extent do they represent anti war voices? Both Swinney and Kennedy are rather equivocal on the question and there certainly are a whole range of other voices available, including those who reject war with or without a UN resolution One of the points I was trying to make in my interview with Raymond was that in a situation where the normal political sources are out of touch, it is often difficult for the media to find alternative sources. The reflex may be to stick to 'experts' and politicians. I note from your list of interviewees that you have not had any of the organisers of the demonstration in the studio, or people from - say - CND or Scottish muslim voices. While I accept what you say about the need to balance across a range of programmes, it does seem to me that overall this can only be said to have been achieved if one accepts that the range of dissent is only as broad as the politicians you have interviewed. My suggestion would be that it would be a welcome breath of fresh air to have some sharper debate. Perhaps a three way debate between supporters of war, people who would support war only with a resolution (and maybe some more evidence) and those opposed to war even with a resolution. Speaking with my 'expert' hat on for a moment, it seems to me that the whole question of media coverage and dissent could be usefully addressed - especially given ITN's interesting item last night when they brought together Tony Blair and six anti war marchers. Also, as I discussed with Raymond, the question of propaganda and how the battle for hearts and minds is being fought is overdue for some explication. I hope you find these comments helpful. Best wishes, David Miller > From: "Douglas MacLeod" > Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 13:12:12 -0000 > To: "david Miller" > Subject: RE: Eye to Eye > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: david Miller [SMTP:david.miller@stir.ac.uk] >> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 11:56 AM >> To: Douglas MacLeod >> Subject: FW: Eye to Eye >> >> Dear David >> >> Sorry about delay, I work Wednesday to Sunday. >> >> Many thanks for your comments. First let me address the question of >> balance. It is a programme which goes out once a week, and as a >> consequence matters of balance have to be looked at over the weeks and not >> necessarily within each programme. Could I refer you to the previous weeks >> edition? It was the week of the march, and, as such, contained a deal >> of anti war voices. The sequence was as follows: it opened with a package >> on the Glasgow march itself, the newspaper review, which reflected the >> world nature of the protests, an interview with John Swinney and a >> discussion with two defence experts whose broad conclusion was that this >> might well damage the government's position and force a rethink. >> I have been at great pains to ensure this balance over our coverage of the >> war. The political interviews have been: 12th January: Charles Kennedy, >> 19th January Eric Joyce, 2nd February Michael Anchram, and, as I've said, >> John Swinney on the 16th of February. Other war related items: 19th >> January: Lt Col Stuart Crawford ( Gulf veteran, opposed to present conflict >> said he would refuse to go if called up as reservist). 19th January, >> discussion on Coping with Terror, with our Northern Ireland correspondent >> and an expert on security management, which was a non partisan examination >> of how people learn to live with the threat of terrorism, but did raise the >> issue of spin and raising terrorist fears). 26th January, discussion on the >> effect of any war on the world economy, with an oil expert and a financial >> analyst. (The oil commentator came to quite a different conclusion from >> that reached by the one on Sunday 23rd February, to wit, a war was hugely >> risky to the oil economy.) >> >> There were no other arguments in play regarding the pre recorded piece, and >> certainly no editorial arguments in play, simply the computer crashed and we >> were unable to reboot it in time, and I trust the above calms any fears you >> have regarding overall bias >> >> Regards >> >> Douglas Macleod. >> >> sorry wrong spelling the first time. >> >> ---------- >> From: david Miller >> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:19:31 +0000 >> To: >> Cc: >> Subject: Eye to Eye >> >> Dear Douglas, >> >> I am writing about Sunday's edition of BBC Radio Scotland's Eye to Eye. I >> understand from Raymond Buchanan that the package on the war did not go out >> because of technical difficulties involving the freezing of the computer. >> Can you let me have any further details about these difficulties. My >> understanding is that the package should have gone out at about 1045am. Can >> you also let me know why it was not possible to overcome the technical >> difficulties and play the package at anytime in the remaining 15 minutes? >> >> As I understand it the package included comments from myself on the media >> coverage of anti-war protest, noting the problems that the media face in >> covering an issue where public, comments from Mick Napier of Edinburgh Stop >> the War and (possibly) comments from a further critic. In the absence of >> these voices the programme (as you know) featured a discussion with Peter >> McMahon (Scotsman and ex First Ministers official spokesperson), Alan >> Cochrane (Telegraph) and Julia Hartley-Brewer (Express). They all agreed >> that Blair would not be damaged by the anti war protests and that opinion >> would come round after the war is won. One of your guests argued that Blair >> would end up being viewed as ending up as a 'hero'. In addition Eye to Eye >> featured an interview with someone arguing that a war in defence of oil >> interests was a good thing.> >> >> As a result of the package being lost, the programme ended up quite >> unbalanced. This problem could be addressed by allowing access to critical >> voices on the war on next week's programme. Perhaps you could let me know >> what you think of this and how you propose to remedy this problem? >> >> As you know there have been a number of reports in the media in the past few >> days indicating that some parts of the BBC are closely monitoring the >> expression of dissent (including at the BAFTA ceremony, a radio three world >> music poll etc). >> >> Given these reports (and obviously some may be misreported) It occurs to me >> to ask you a further question: Why were all the critical voices interviewed >> for the pre-record and not interviewed live in the studio? Was this part of >> the internal caution at the BBC or not? As you will know I have in the past >> appeared live on eye to Eye and in a variety of live and pre-recorded pieces >> for a number of BBC Scotland programmes over more than a decade. This is the >> first time that anything like this has happened. >> >> Lastly, and with all due respect, I would like to ask you to state exactly >> why the pre-record item did not go out on Sunday? Was it simply technical >> difficulties or were there other arguments in play? >> >> I hope to hear from you soon. >> >> Best wishes >> >> David Miller >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > BBCi at http://www.bbc.co.uk/ > > This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain > personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically > stated. > If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system, do > not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in > reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the > BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will > signify your consent to this. > From david.miller at stir.ac.uk Fri Feb 28 11:57:17 2003 From: david.miller at stir.ac.uk (david Miller) Date: Thu Apr 1 12:43:43 2004 Subject: [Media-watch] FW: [GSAW] News at Ten In-Reply-To: <007c01c2df12$64043d40$f76e893e@mycomputer> Message-ID: great stuff ---------- From: "George Blazyca" Reply-To: GSAW@yahoogroups.com Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:11:24 -0000 To: Subject: [GSAW] News at Ten Dear Friends, I don't if anyone else saw the end of last night's, News at Ten, but, for your interest, here is my reaction to it: Best, George Blazyca John Pullman Editor News at Ten Dear Mr Pullman, I write to express my dismay in the way your programme (last evening's News at Ten), in Trevor McDonald's concluding remarks, glibly made an almost subliminal association between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks in New York on September 11th. I am sure you are interested in maintaining the highest standards of accuracy in generating information but to permit a conclusion which went: 'Finally, as the world decides what to do about Saddam Hussein, the city, New York, where it all started on September 11th is facing an important decision ...' with its clear underlying suggestion that Saddam was responsible for those attacks, does nothing to help clear the fog of propaganda and misinformation, much of it government sponsored, that exists at a moment of grave importance for us and the international community. At this time we need, more then ever, honest reporting and debate founded on strong facts. News at Ten should play a responsible role here and I hope, for all our sakes, that it will return quickly to higher journalistic standards. If you want to say 'Saddam is evil' most of us will applaud. If you try to tell us that he was in some way responsible for September 11th you will excuse us if we shake our heads in doubt and disagreement. Yours sincerely, George Blazyca Yahoo! Groups Sponsor   ADVERTISEMENT To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: GSAW-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service . From david.miller at stir.ac.uk Fri Feb 28 14:28:14 2003 From: david.miller at stir.ac.uk (david Miller) Date: Thu Apr 1 12:43:43 2004 Subject: [Media-watch] FW: News 02/28/03 -Horror - Mother's Disgust As Her Son's KillersTo Be Let Loose InGulf In-Reply-To: <0HB0004SKUBFSW@mta5.rcsntx.swbell.net> Message-ID: for info ---------- From: rdooling@swbell.net Reply-To: rdooling@swbell.net Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 07:47:22 -0600 To: "News Buffs"@nodots-daemon.rutgers.edu Subject: News 02/28/03 - Accused Spy is Model Civil Servant IrelandClick.com North Belfast To Say No To War North Belfast anti-war groups are mobilising with a series of meetings and protests against the threatened war in Iraq. Schools, work places, unemployed groups, families, individuals of all ages and local politicians have been invited to attend a public meeting in the Belfast Unemployed Centre on Wednesday night. Brenda Callaghan from the North Belfast Trades Union Forum said the meeting for North Belfast people was to bring all groups together who were against war on the Iraqi people. "All are welcome and we would ask anyone from North Belfast to come along so we can get the area represented for many more activities in the coming months with the anti-war coalition which organised the big anti-war rally last month," the North Belfast woman said. The event will begin at 7pm at the venue beside the John Hewitt bar in lower Donegall Street. Journalist:Staff Reporter ****************************************** IrelandClick.com Horror - Mother's Disgust As Her Son's Killers To Be Let Loose In Gulf Jean McBride, the mother of murdered Belfast teenager Peter McBride, has expressed horror that the two soldiers who murdered her son will be let loose in the Gulf. The British MoD recently announced the Irish Guards, the regiment Scots Guardsmen James Fisher and Mark Wright are on secondment to in Germany, were being deployed to fight in the pending war on Iraq. The Irish Guards based at Oxford Barracks in Muenster, Germany, are to be sent to the Gulf shortly despite the largest anti-war protests ever seen in the world. A British army spokeswoman refused to confirm if the two who were convicted of the 1992 murder on the New Lodge Road were among the 530 soldiers en route to the Gulf, but did confirm that the "whole battalion" would be deployed. But Jean McBride said that the decision exposed the lies of the British army when it said the soldiers would not be put into the same situation as they had been in North Belfast when they gunned down the teenage father of two. "Mark Wright and James Fisher, the two soldiers who murdered my son are based with the Irish Guards at the Oxford Barracks in Muenster in Germany," said Jean McBride. "So Tony Blair is sending convicted murderers off to fight a war. The Ministry of Defence justified retention of these men by promising that there 'was no danger of repetition' since the two would not be based here again. "God help the young people of Baghdad or Basra if soldiers with a track record of shooting unarmed teenagers in the back are being sent out. There is every danger of repetition if these two are put back on the street with guns and a license to kill. "If the New Lodge was too much for them the mind boggles at how they will react in Iraq. How many civilians will they shoot in the back because the 'security situation is tense' or because they have been warned about the danger of Iraqi coffee jar bombs? I am seeking urgent legal advice to find out if can we take action against the MoD on this," said Jean McBride. Journalist:Staff Reporter ****************************************** From david.miller at stir.ac.uk Fri Feb 28 15:07:00 2003 From: david.miller at stir.ac.uk (david Miller) Date: Thu Apr 1 12:43:44 2004 Subject: [Media-watch] FW: Outrageous Omissions - Iraqi Disarmament In-Reply-To: <200302281436.h1SEaxn29564@scarab.giga-sj-001.net> Message-ID: ---------- From: MediaLens Media Alerts Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 14:36:59 UT To: Friend Subject: Outrageous Omissions - Iraqi Disarmament MEDIA LENS: Correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media February 28, 2003 MEDIA ALERT: OUTRAGEOUS OMISSIONS How The Press Has Buried The Truth Of Iraqi Disarmament The Bush and Blair governments are dragging the public kicking and screaming into a war that threatens to plunge the world into chaos and which almost nobody wants. Like an occupying force, British politicians representing elite interests from both leading political parties are blatantly defying the will of the British public, just as their counterparts are defying the public in Turkey where 90% of the population is opposed to war in all circumstances, in Spain where 79% is opposed to war in all circumstances, and in Italy where 80% is opposed. This would be outrageous enough, but there is more. A massive assault is being planned against a crushed Third World country that was demolished by the US/UK in the original Gulf War, by continuous (and now all but daily) bombing raids since, and by murderous sanctions that have been described as "genocidal" by senior United Nations diplomats who resigned in protest. But even this is not the whole story. The British and US governments, with the near 100% complicity of the mainstream media, are basing their arguments for war on two key deceptions: 1) Iraq has large quantities of deadly weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which it is not prepared to disclose or surrender. 2) Iraq has had 12 years to disarm but has never done so - a further 120 days of weapons inspections (as proposed by the Franco-German initiative) are therefore pointless. Desperate to stick to their early to mid-March timetable for war, the British and US governments have declared the futility of further inspections. Tony Blair has dismissed the Franco-German plan for peaceful disarmament, saying it was "absurd" to think UN inspectors could find lethal weapons without Baghdad's full cooperation: "The idea that inspectors could conceivably sniff out the weapons... without the help of Iraqi authorities is absurd," the prime minister told parliament. "They are not a detective agency and even if they were Iraq is a country with a land mass roughly the size of France." (Mike Peacock, 'Britain's Blair Slams Franco-German Iraq Plan', Reuters, February 25, 2003) In reality, Blair's key claims are flatly contradicted by the UNSCOM inspectors who sought to disarm Iraq between 1991-98. Fundamentally Eliminated - The View From UNSCOM And Elsewhere In 'Concerning Disarmament and Current and Future Ongoing Monitoring and Verification Issues, 27 March 1999, a United Nations Panel reported: "[I]n spite of well-known difficult circumstances, UNSCOM and IAEA have been effective in uncovering and destroying many elements of Iraq's proscribed weapons programmes in accordance with the mandate provided by the Security Council. It is the panel's understanding that IAEA has been able to devise a technically coherent picture of Iraq's nuclear weapons programme. UNSCOM has achieved considerable progress in establishing material balances of Iraq's proscribed weapons. Although important elements still have to be resolved, the bulk of Iraq's proscribed weapons programmes has been eliminated." (http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/Amorim%20Report.htm) Corroborating this, an article in Newsweek (February 24) "raises questions about whether the WMD stockpiles attributed to Iraq still exist". Newsweek reports that the Iraqi weapons chief who defected from the regime in 1995, Gen. Hussein Kamel, who was killed after returning to Iraq in 1996, told UN inspectors that Iraq had destroyed its entire stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and banned missiles, as Iraq claims. In its latest Media Advisory, the US media watch group FAIR reports how Gen. Kamel was previously best known for his role in exposing Iraq's deceptions concerning its pre-Gulf War development of biological weapons. But Newsweek's John Barry has obtained the transcript of Kamel's 1995 debriefing by officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and UNSCOM. This transcript reveals how the US and UK have kept the public from the truth. Inspectors were told "that after the Gulf War, Iraq destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons stocks and the missiles to deliver them," Barry writes. All that remained were "hidden blueprints, computer disks, microfiches" and production moulds. The weapons were destroyed secretly, in order to hide their existence from inspectors, in the hopes of resuming production after inspections had finished. The CIA and MI6 were told the same story, Barry reports, and "a military aide who defected with Kamel... backed Kamel's assertions about the destruction of WMD stocks". These statements were "hushed up by the U.N. inspectors" in order to "bluff Saddam into disclosing still more". (FAIR, Media Advisory: 'Star Witness on Iraq Said Weapons Were Destroyed - Bombshell revelation from a defector cited by White House and press', February 27, 2003, http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kamel.html) In the transcript, Kamel says categorically: "I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons - biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed." (See Glen Rangwala's analysis of the Kamel transcript: http://middleeastreference.org.uk/kamel.html) Kamel was an extremely high-profile defector who has been repeatedly cited as a credible source by George Bush, Tony Blair and leading administration officials. Kamel was, for example, mentioned in Secretary of State Colin Powell's infamous February 5 presentation to the UN Security Council: "It took years for Iraq to finally admit that it had produced four tons of the deadly nerve agent, VX... The admission only came out after inspectors collected documentation as a result of the defection of Hussein Kamel, Saddam Hussein's late son-in-law." In an earlier Media Advisory, FAIR reported that some of the current UNMOVIC inspectors believe that Iraq may indeed be free of all banned weapons: "We haven't found an iota of concealed material yet," one unnamed UNMOVIC official told Los Angeles Times Baghdad correspondent Sergei Loiko (December 31, 2002), who added: "The inspector said his colleagues think it possible that Iraq really has eliminated its banned materials." (Fair, Media Advisory: 'Iraq's Hidden Weapons: From Allegation to Fact', February 4, 2003 http://www.fair.org/press-releases/iraq-weapons.html) In an April 2002 briefing, 'A Threat to the World? The facts about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction', Cambridge analyst Glen Rangwala writes: "UNSCOM recorded how there was compliance with most of its work for over seven years of intrusive inspections. As a result, UNSCOM's executive chairman Rolf Ekeus reported to the Security Council on 11 April 1997 that ' not much is unknown about Iraq's retained proscribed weapons capabilities'." Many of the weapons inspectors have candidly recorded the extensive disarmament of Iraq. Reviewing the 9 years of Iraqi disarmament, Rolf Ekeus stated in a presentation at Harvard University on 23 May 2000 that "in all areas we have eliminated Iraq's [WMD] capabilities fundamentally". (http://www.arabmediawatch.com/iraq/reading/artgr6.htm) As we have reported, chief UNSCOM weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, has described how Iraq was "fundamentally disarmed", with 90-95% of its weapons of mass destruction eliminated between 1991-98. Of nuclear weapons capability, for example, Ritter says: "When I left Iraq in 1998... the infrastructure and facilities had been 100% eliminated. There's no doubt about that. All of their instruments and facilities had been destroyed. The weapons design facility had been destroyed. The production equipment had been hunted down and destroyed. And we had in place means to monitor - both from vehicles and from the air - the gamma rays that accompany attempts to enrich uranium or plutonium. We never found anything." (Ritter and William Rivers Pitt, War On Iraq, Profile Books, 2002, p.26) Ritter explains how UN arms inspectors roamed the country monitoring Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear facilities, installing sensitive sniffers and cameras and performing no-notice inspections: "We blanketed Iraq - every research and development facility, every university, every school, every hospital, every beer factory..." (p.38) Two Notes On The Media 1) All of the above - crucial information relating to the current crisis - has been almost completely excluded from the media. People simply do not know that there are good reasons for thinking that Iraq has no WMD, and that arms inspections of the kind taking place now have been enormously successful in disarming Iraq in the past. Incredibly, there has been almost no discussion on the success of the 1991-98 UNSCOM inspections - an obviously key issue for understanding the worth of the current inspection process - and almost no mention of the opinions of previous inspectors describing "fundamental disarmament". As a result of this media silence, politicians have been free to talk endlessly of the threat from Iraq's WMD, and of its lamentable failure to cooperate and disarm peacefully. In a recent BBC Question Time programme, UK environment minister Michael Meacher said that "no one would argue that Saddam Hussein doesn't have weapons of mass destruction" (February 27) - the entire panel appeared to be in agreement. 2) John Pilger aside, no mainstream journalist has sought to draw attention to this deep complicity of the media in suppressing the most important facts contradicting the US/UK case for war. Even radical journalists like Robert Fisk, Greg Palast and George Monbiot have failed to discuss the role of the liberal media - The Guardian, The Observer, The Independent, the Independent on Sunday, and the BBC and ITN news - in burying these facts and in thereby making war possible. Although the performance of the media has been appalling throughout this crisis, as we have documented, there remains a 'gentleman's agreement' among journalists whereby it is understood that media hosting a journalist's work should not be criticised (just as all corporate employees understand they are not to criticise their company's product in front of customers). This means that radical journalists - who all work for liberal media companies - are silent on the complicity of the media publishing them, such that these media are protected from all honest public criticism. This has long been unacceptable in a 'free press', but it is a genuine disaster for democracy now when these same liberal media are playing a key role in denying the public access to the most important facts that completely undermine the case for an unnecessary and grossly immoral war. As the ancient sage, Nagarjuna, warns: "Not doing harm to others, Not bowing down to the ignoble, Not abandoning the path of virtue - These are small points, but of great Importance." Now is the time for honesty, truth, dissent, protest and resignations - we must +not+ subordinate the welfare of others to our own self-interest. We must not bow down to the ignoble. SUGGESTED ACTION: The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. In writing letters to journalists, we strongly urge readers to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone. SAMPLE LETTER Dear Sir Why have you ignored the authoritative claims of UNSCOM inspectors and others to the effect that Iraq was "fundamentally disarmed" by December 1998? In 1999, a United Nations Panel reported: "[I]n spite of well-known difficult circumstances, UNSCOM and IAEA have been effective in uncovering and destroying many elements of Iraq's proscribed weapons programmes in accordance with the mandate provided by the Security Council... UNSCOM has achieved considerable progress in establishing material balances of Iraq's proscribed weapons. Although important elements still have to be resolved, the bulk of Iraq's proscribed weapons programmes has been eliminated." (Report of the First Panel, Established pursuant to the Note by the President of the Security Council on 30 January 1999 (S/1999/100), http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/Amorim%20Report.htm) Reviewing the 9 years of Iraqi disarmament, UNSCOM's executive chairman Rolf Ekeus stated in a presentation at Harvard University on 23 May 2000 that "in all areas we have eliminated Iraq's [WMD] capabilities fundamentally".' (http://www.arabmediawatch.com/iraq/reading/artgr6.htm) Chief UNSCOM weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, has described how Iraq was "fundamentally disarmed", with 90-95% of its weapons of mass destruction eliminated between 1991-98. Of nuclear weapons capability, for example, Ritter says: "When I left Iraq in 1998... the infrastructure and facilities had been 100% eliminated. There's no doubt about that. All of their instruments and facilities had been destroyed. The weapons design facility had been destroyed. The production equipment had been hunted down and destroyed. And we had in place means to monitor - both from vehicles and from the air - the gamma rays that accompany attempts to enrich uranium or plutonium. We never found anything." (Ritter and William Rivers Pitt, War On Iraq, Profile Books, 2002, p.26) Why have you not reported and urgently highlighted these vital facts undermining the US/UK case for dismissing further inspections? Write to the heads of BBC news and ITN expressing your views: Richard Sambrook, BBC director of news. Email: richard.sambrook@bbc.co.uk Jonathan Munro, head of ITN newsgathering. Email: jonathan.munro@itn.co.uk Write to the editors of The Guardian and The Observer: Alan Rusbridger, Guardian editor Email: alan.rusbridger@guardian.co.uk Roger Alton, Observer editor Email: roger.alton@observer.co.uk Simon Kelner, Independent editor Email: s.kelner@independent.co.uk Leonard Doyle, Independent foreign editor Email: l.doyle@independent.co.uk Feel free to respond to Media Lens alerts: editor@medialens.org Visit the Media Lens website: http://www.medialens.org To unsubscribe: http://www.medialens.org/cgi/swm/swmlist.cgi?mode=r&a=media&e=david.miller@s tir.ac.uk From d.j.smith at stir.ac.uk Fri Feb 28 15:13:05 2003 From: d.j.smith at stir.ac.uk (Darren Smith) Date: Thu Apr 1 12:43:45 2004 Subject: [Media-watch] moving on/ detecting bias In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1046445333.2281.7.camel@mushroom.stir.ac.uk> Another suggestion, which is actually very timely, is to lobby Newsnight to investigate the claims of Ritter that Iraq was fundamentally disarmed in 1998. I think the latest MediaLens analyses this issue, so that's the material that can be used. Darren On Mon, 2003-02-24 at 22:18, david Miller wrote: > Darren, > > this sounds like a good suggestion. I think tat both ideas are good. It > seems to me that we should be trying to complain as much as possible about > the lack of representation of the anti war case on the media. On special > investigations: One thing which seems to me to be left out is an > acknowledgement that the US and UK governments are engaged in a propaganda > campaign. This could be discussed openly with examples from the history of > propaganda. > > Any other suggestions? > > David > > > From: Darren Smith {Psych} > > Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 11:59:09 -0000 > > To: David Miller , "'media-watch@lists.stir.ac.uk '" > > > > Subject: RE: [Media-watch] moving on/ detecting bias > > > > I was wondering whether we could have media campaign themes, or issues, > > that we could get others new to media activism to get involved with. I.e., > > what simple changes to the media could we collectively campaign for, and > > make it easy for others new to this to get involved? > > > > E.g., maybe we could start a campaign to get Newsnight or some other regular > > interview show to get prominent left wingers on TV. Maybe we could campaign > > for investigations on special issues etc. It would then be easy to write up > > a web page or pamphet about such a campaign, and then suggest example > > letters that could be written, and to whom they should be sent, etc. > > > > Just a thought. > > > > Darren > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: david Miller > > To: media-watch@lists.stir.ac.uk > > Sent: 21/02/2003 10:25 > > Subject: [Media-watch] moving on/ detecting bias > > > > Dear all, > > > > we had a small meeting last night to discuss moving the media watch idea > > on. We agreed to plan an extended meeting with a video showing on media > > and propaganda in war and possibly a couple of speakers (including one > > or two journalists), followed by a workshop on how to identify bias and > > how to complain. Anyone who can help with this, please get in touch. > > > > Below is a list of (US) resources on detecting bias. I will circulate > > more as I come across them. In other emails I will circulate a list of > > contact details for the Scottish media. We decided that an immediate > > priority was to produce a laminated media watch card with emails and > > phone numbers for the main Scottish and UK news outlets so that people > > can complain whenever they get annoyed by the latest piece of > > spin/distortion. > > > > The media are in a quandary just now, because they can see that there is > > massive opposition to the war, but the political establishment is so out > > of kilter. They are so used to speaking to 'experts' and political > > leaders that they haven't got much of an idea about how to cover mass > > dissent. In this climate it is all the more important that as many > > people as possible complain about distortions and omissions. > > > > Let's try and use this list as a means of encouraging people to complain > > for themselves.... > > > > I will be in touch again soon. > > > > David > > > > > > Detecting bias in the news: > > > > How to Detect Bias in the News > > http://www.media-awareness.ca/eng/med/class/teamedia/peace/bias7.htm > > > > Detecting Bias in the News > > http://faculty.washington.edu/~jalbano/bias.html > > > > Recognising bias and distortion in television news programs > > http://hsc.csu.edu.au/pta/scansw/bias.htm > > > > The Media Bias Detector (adapted from the book Unreliable Sources: A > > Guide to Detecting Bias in the News) > > http://www.adamranson.freeserve.co.uk/fair%20media%20bias%20detector%20. > > PDF > > > > FAIR¹s Media Activism Kit http://www.fair.org/activism/activismkit.html > > > > Citizens and the Media: Fact, Opinion, Bias > > http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/education/teachers/strategies/19 > > 98/Plan33e.htm > > > > Topic: September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks on the World Trade Center > > and the Pentagon Deconstructing Images From the Media > > http://www.mit.edu/cms/reconstructions/education/audiofoot.html > > > > Topic: The Gulf War A Lesson in Media Literacy > > http://www.newsworld.cbc.ca/flashback/1991/gulfclass.html > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Media-watch mailing list > > Media-watch@lists.stir.ac.uk > > http://lists.stir.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/media-watch > > -- > > The University of Stirling is a university established in Scotland by > > charter at Stirling, FK9 4LA. Privileged/Confidential Information may > > be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated > > in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such > > person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone > > and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is > > prohibited and may be unlawful. In such case, you should destroy this > > message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise > > immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email > > for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other > > information in this message that do not relate to the official > > business of the University of Stirling shall be understood as neither > > given nor endorsed by it. > > -- djs1@stir.ac.uk DON'T ATTACK IRAQ!!! www.edinburghstw.org.uk From kevkiernan at hotmail.com Fri Feb 28 15:36:33 2003 From: kevkiernan at hotmail.com (Kev Kiernan) Date: Thu Apr 1 12:43:46 2004 Subject: [Media-watch] Star Witness on Iraq Said Weapons Were Destroyed Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.stir.ac.uk/pipermail/media-watch/attachments/20030228/7057f5e2/attachment.htm