[Media-watch] Bias on a BBC news page?

[Darren Smith]

Really shocking bias (I think) on a BBC New Online web-page. In an
article
describing the hidden negotiations at the UN to secure a second
resolution, BBC commentator Angus Roxburgh describes France's efforts to
persuade other members to withhold support as "trying to get the smaller
countries to do its dirty work for it." This is a slur which serves to
discredit French actions which may prevent a devastating war from taking
place.

Of course, no mention of the "secret 'dirty tricks' campaign against UN
Security Council delegations" being conducted by the US, as reported in
the Observer (2 March).

The BBC Online Article is included below, and can also be read at: 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2841757.stm

ACTION

Please complain immediately about the description of France's diplomacy
as "dirty work." 

Write to Angus.Roxburgh at bbc.co.uk and to the Editor
mike.smartt at bbc.co.uk


________________________________________________________________________
MY LETTER

To: mike.smartt at bbc.co.uk, Angus.Roxburgh at bbc.co.uk
Cc: Media Editor 
Subject: BBC News online / not impartial / coverage of French diplomacy

Dear Mr Smartt / Mr. Roxburgh

REFERENCE: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2841757.stm

Why does the BBC describe French diplomacy as "dirty work?" 

A BBC News Online web-page says, "Put crudely, France is trying to get
the smaller countries to do its dirty work for it."

Put crudely, this is biased BBC reporting. Why is French diplomacy
described in such slanderous tones? This is hardly "impartial coverage
of news and current affairs" the BBC purports to undertake.

Please remove or replace that paragraph as soon as you can.

Regards,



________________________________________________________________________
FULL TEXT

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2841757.stm

Moscow and Paris show their hand

By Angus Roxburgh
BBC News Online

French President Jacques Chirac and President Vladimir Putin Russia and
France have indicated they will veto the resolution The UN Security
Council's deliberations over Iraq have come to resemble an artful game
of poker.

Each of the 15 players keeps his hand close to his chest, for fear of
giving away his game-plan, while occasionally revealing a card in order
to influence the others.

So why was it that France and Russia suddenly revealed their entire
hand?

No more subtle messages about "not supporting" the forthcoming "second"
resolution sponsored by Britain, America and Spain: instead, an outright
declaration that they will use their veto to block it.

Remember: neither France nor Russia actually wants to use its veto,
since this would precipitate possibly the worst crisis in the UN's
history.

But both know they will only need to veto the resolution if it attracts
the support of at least nine Security Council members.

Preventative action

So their diplomacy has been directed at preventing the "yes" side from
reaching that magic number of nine.

The French look as though they are playing a clever game of bluff or
even double-bluff.

On his tour of Angola, Cameroon and Guinea, the foreign minister

Dominique de Villepin, it is reported, has been telling these current
members of the Security Council: look, what is the point of you voting
for the resolution when it won't pass anyway, because (as we are telling
you) we will veto it?

Why get your hands dirty by voting for war, the argument goes, when
world opinion is set against it?

Thus, by cunningly playing on the smaller countries' fears of stepping
out of line, France hopes to persuade them to abstain or vote against
the resolution, so that it falls anyway - thus making the French veto
unnecessary.

Put crudely, France is trying to get the smaller countries to do its
dirty work for it.

In this light, it might even be conjectured that all of France's recent
overtures towards Francophone Africa, and the continent in general, have
been gearing up to this moment, when three African votes will be
crucial.

Earlier this month, it will be recalled, President Jacques Chirac
patched up relations with Algeria, with the first visit there by a
French head of state since the country's independence.

He was hailed as a hero.

He also ingratiated himself with African countries by holding a summit
for them in Paris last month - and making sure that Zimbabwe's Robert
Mugabe was allowed to attend, despite an EU travel ban.

The Russians have also come clean about their intention to veto the
resolution.

Resolution worries

For them (and presumably for the French) their opposition to it is
fuelled by their perception that it is not intended as a means to avert
war but as a means to justify war.

The Russian foreign minister, Igor Ivanov, speaking to students in
Moscow, said it contained "demands which cannot be met, in the form of
an ultimatum".

Moscow has, it is true, left the door slightly ajar, saying it objects
to "the resolution currently introduced for consideration" - allowing
for the possibility that it could be further amended to the Russians'
liking.

Both France and Russia feel they are in the right.

If there is a UN crisis, they believe, it will not be their fault for
failing to back war.

They say there is an alternative - to support a motion allowing the
weapons inspectors to continue their work for the "months" which Dr Hans
Blix says could produce results.

So by the French and Russian logic, rejected in Washington and London,
the looming crisis will be entirely President Bush's fault, if he
presses ahead with war despite the lack of a second resolution.

The British prime minister Tony Blair has said that "if countries talk
about using a veto in all sets of circumstances, the message that sends
to Saddam is: you're off the hook".

But President Chirac and President Putin may feel that their
announcement will force Britain and the US to drop the resolution.

They might even succeed in this, for Mr Bush and Mr Blair could conclude
that the inevitable crisis will be slightly less severe (that is, their
actions may be slightly easier to justify) if they base their decision
to attack Iraq on the existing resolution, 1441, rather than having a
new one rejected and then openly going against the will of the Security
Council.

There remains much to play for - but not much time - before all the
cards have to be laid out on the table.