'Limited But Persuasive' Evidence - Syria, Sarin, Libya, Lies
By David Edwards
Last month, a ComRes poll supported by Media Lens interviewed 2,021 British adults, asking:
By David Edwards
Last month, a ComRes poll supported by Media Lens interviewed 2,021 British adults, asking:
'How many Iraqis, both
combatants and civilians, do you think have died as a
consequence of the war that began in Iraq in 2003?'
An
astonishing 44% of respondents estimated that less than 5,000
Iraqis had died since 2003. 59% believed that fewer than 10,000
had died. Just 2% put the toll in excess of one million, the
likely correct
estimate.
In October
2006, just three years into the war, the Lancet medical journal
reported 'about 655,000 Iraqis have died above the number
that would be expected in a non-conflict situation, which is
equivalent to about 2.5% of the population in the study area'.
In 2007,
an Associated Press
poll also asked the US public to estimate the Iraqi civilian
death toll from the war. 52% of respondents believed that fewer
than 10,000 Iraqis had died.
Noam
Chomsky commented on the latest findings:
'Pretty shocking. I'm sure
you've seen Sut Jhally's study of estimates of Vietnam war
deaths at the elite university where he teaches. Median 100,000,
about 5% of the official figure, probably 2% of the actual
figure. Astonishing - unless one bears in mind that for the US
at least, many people don't even have a clue where France is.
Noam' (Email to Media Lens, June 1, 2013. See: Sut Jhally,
Justin Lewis, & Michael Morgan, The Gulf War: A Study of the
Media, Public Opinion, & Public Knowledge, Department of
Communications, U. Mass. Amherst, 1991)
Alex
Thomson, chief correspondent at Channel 4 News, has so far
provided the only corporate media
discussion of the poll. He perceived 'questions for us on
the media that after so much time, effort and money, the public
perception of bloodshed remains stubbornly, wildly, wrong'.
In fact
the poll was simply ignored by both print and broadcast media.
Our search of the Lexis media database found no mention in any
UK newspaper, despite the fact that ComRes polls are deemed
highly credible and frequently reported in the press.
Although
we gave Thomson the chance to scoop the poll, he chose to
publish it on his blog viewed by a small number of people on the
Channel 4 website. Findings which Thomson found 'so
staggeringly, mind-blowingly at odds with reality' that they
left him 'speechless' apparently did not merit a TV audience.
Les
Roberts, lead author of the 2004 Lancet study and co-author of
the 2006 study, also responded:
'This March, a
review of death toll estimates by Burkle and Garfield was
published in the Lancet in an issue commemorating the 10th
anniversary of the invasion. They reviewed 11 studies of data
sources ranging from passive tallies of government and newspaper
reports to careful randomized household surveys, and concluded
that something in the ballpark of half a million Iraqi civilians
have died. The various sources include a wide variation of
current estimates, from one-hundred thousand plus to a million.'
Roberts
said of the latest poll:
'It may be that most
British people do not care what results arise from the actions
of their leaders and the work of their tax money. Alternatively,
it also could be that the British and US Governments have
actively and aggressively worked to discredit sources and
confuse death toll estimates in hopes of keeping the public from
unifying and galvanizing around a common narrative.' (Email to
Media Lens, June 12, 2013. You can see Roberts' comments in full
here)
Indeed,
the public's ignorance of the cost paid by the people of Iraq is
no accident. Despite privately
considering the 2006 Lancet study 'close to best practice'
and 'robust' the British government immediately set about
destroying the credibility of the findings of both the 2004 and
2006 Lancet studies. Professor Brian Rappert of the University
of Exeter
reported that government 'deliberations were geared in a
particular direction – towards finding grounds for rejecting the
[2004] Lancet study without any evidence of countervailing
efforts by government officials to produce or endorse
alternative other studies or data'.
Unsurprisingly, the same political executives who had fabricated
the case for war on Iraq sought to fabricate reasons for
ignoring peer-reviewed science exposing the costs of their great
crime. More surprising, one might think, is the long-standing
media enthusiasm for these fabrications. The corporate media
were happy to swallow the UK government's alleged 'grounds for
rejecting' the Lancet studies to the extent that a recent
Guardian news piece
claimed that the invasion had led to the deaths of 'tens of
thousands of Iraqis'.
Syria – Dropping Del Ponte
A natural
counterpart to the burying of evidence of 'our' embarrassing
crimes is the hyping of the crimes of official enemies.
Thus, the
media would have us believe that as many, or more, people have
died in Syria during two years of war than have died in ten
years of mass killing in Iraq (the favoured media figure is
around 100,000 Iraqis killed). The Times reports 'as many as
94,000 deaths' in Syria. (Anthony Loyd, 'War in Syria has
plumbed new depths of barbarity, says UN,' The Times, June 5,
2013)
Reuters
reports:
'The Syrian Observatory
for Human Rights [SOHR], an opposition group, said on Tuesday
that at least 94,000 people have been killed but the death toll
is likely to be as high as 120,000.'
Figures
supplied by SOHR, an organisation
openly biased in favour of the Syrian 'rebels' and Western
intervention is presented as sober fact by one of the world's
leading news agencies. No concerns here about methodology,
sample sizes, 'main street bias' and other alleged concerns
thrown at the Lancet studies by critics. According to Reuters
itself, SOHR
consists of a single individual, Rami Abdulrahman, the owner
of a clothes shop, who works from his 'two bedroom terraced home
in Coventry'.
As we
noted last month, clearly inspired by the example of Iraq,
Western governments and media have bombarded the public with
claims of Syrian government use of chemical weapons. In April,
the Independent's Robert Fisk
judged the claims 'a load of old cobblers'.
The
state-media propaganda campaign was rudely interrupted on May 6
by former Swiss attorney-general Carla Del Ponte, speaking for
the United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria.
Del Ponte
said, 'there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet
incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the
victims were treated. This was use on the part of the
opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities'.
She
added:
'We have no, no indication
at all that the Syrian government have used chemical
weapons.'
Lexis
finds 15 national UK newspaper articles mentioning Del Ponte's
claims since May 6. There has been one mention since the initial
coverage (May 6-8) on May 11, more than one month ago. In other
words, this is a good example of the way an unwelcome event
is covered by the media but not retained as an integral
part of the story.
On May 30,
local Turkish media and RT News also
reported that Syrian 'rebels' had been caught in a sarin gas
bomb plot:
'Turkish security forces
found a 2kg cylinder with sarin gas after searching the homes of
Syrian militants from the Al-Qaeda linked Al-Nusra Front who
were previously detained, Turkish media reports. The gas was
reportedly going to be used in a bomb.'
This was
another badly 'off-message' story that was again given minimal
coverage, not pursued and instantly buried. Lexis records no UK
newspaper mentions. A senior journalist told us privately that
he and his colleagues felt the story was 'right' but that the
'Turks are closing [it] down.' (Email to Media Lens, June 7,
2013)
Last week,
yet more unsubstantiated claims of possible Syrian government
use of sarin generated a front page BBC report with the
remarkable
headline:
'World "must act" Over
Syria Weapons'
And yet a
BBC article indicated the lack of certainty:
'There is no doubt Syria's
government has used sarin during the country's crisis, says
France's foreign minister... But he did not specify where or
when the agent had been deployed; the White House has said more
proof was needed.'
A UK
government statement
observed merely: 'There is a growing body of limited but
persuasive information showing that the regime used - and
continues to use - chemical weapons.'
Readers
will recall that intelligence indicating the existence of Iraqi
WMD was also said to have been 'limited but persuasive'.
As Peter
Hitchens
notes in the Daily Mail, UK government policy is being
'disgracefully egged on by a BBC that has lost all sense of
impartiality'.
The
Guardian
quoted 'a senior British official':
'Are we confident in our
means of collection, and are we confident that it points to the
regime's use of sarin? Yes.'
Is the
case closed, then? The official added: 'Can we prove it with
100% certainty? Probably not.'
The
Guardian also quoted 'A senior UK official' who said it
'appeared possible that Syrian army commanders had been given
the green light by the regime to use sarin in small quantities'.
'Possible', maybe, but the Guardian failed to explain why anyone
would trust 'a senior UK official' to comment honestly on Syria,
or why anyone would trust an anonymous UK official
after Iraq.
Adding to
the confusion, the Guardian quoted Paulo Pinheiro, who chairs a
UN commission on human rights abuses in Syria. According to
Pinheiro it had 'not been possible, on the evidence available,
to determine the precise chemical agents used, their delivery
systems or the perpetrator'.
Jonathan
Marcus, BBC diplomatic correspondent, wrote:
'This is potentially a
game changer: The French government now believes not only that
the nerve agent sarin has been used in Syria, but that it was
deployed by "the regime and its accomplices".'
In a
recent interview, Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald
commented:
'I approach my journalism
as a litigator. People say things, you assume they are lying,
and dig for documents to prove it.'
Perhaps
the BBC's Marcus could take a leaf from Greenwald's book of
journalism and dig for evidence to show that the French
government is lying when it says it 'believes' that
sarin has been used by the Syrian enemy. After all, the US, UK
and French governments also 'believed'
Iraq was a 'serious and current' threat to the world.
Far less
gung-ho than the relentlessly warmongering BBC, a Telegraph
headline
read: 'US unmoved by French evidence of sarin use in Syria.'
Chuck
Hagel, the US defence secretary, said: 'I have not seen that
evidence that they said that they had and I have not talked to
any of our intelligence people about it.'
The US
officials' comments 'appeared to expose a growing a widening gap
between the US and France over how to respond to Syria's
two-year civil war,' the Telegraph noted.
Libya – Slouching Towards Truth
If the
record of government and media lying on Iraq fails to inspire
scepticism in regard to claims made about Syria, then we might
also consider the example of the Western war on Libya from
March-October, 2011.
In his
excellent book, Slouching Towards Sirte, Maximilian Forte of
Concordia University, Montreal, recalls President Obama's March
28, 2011 justification for Nato's military intervention in Libya
that had begun on March 19:
'If we waited one more
day, Benghazi... could suffer a massacre that would have
reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the
world.' (Forte, Slouching Towards Sirte – NATO's War on Libya
and Africa, Baraka Books, digital version, 2012, p.661)
But when
French jets bombed Libyan government forces retreating from
Benghazi, they attacked a column of 14 tanks, 20 armoured
personnel carriers, some trucks and ambulances. Forte comments:
'That column clearly could
have neither destroyed nor occupied Benghazi, a city of nearly
700,000 people... To date no evidence has been furnished that
shows Benghazi would have witnessed the loss of "tens of
thousands of lives".' (Forte, pp.662-663)
Professor
Alan J. Kuperman, professor of public affairs at the University
of Texas,
observed:
'The best evidence that
Khadafy did not plan genocide in Benghazi is that he did not
perpetrate it in the other cities he had recaptured either fully
or partially — including Zawiya, Misurata, and Ajdabiya, which
together have a population greater than Benghazi.
'Libyan forces did kill
hundreds as they regained control of cities. Collateral damage
is inevitable in counter-insurgency. And strict laws of war may
have been exceeded.
'But Khadafy's acts were a
far cry from Rwanda, Darfur, Congo, Bosnia, and other killing
fields. Libya's air force, prior to imposition of a
UN-authorized no-fly zone, targeted rebel positions, not
civilian concentrations. Despite ubiquitous cellphones equipped
with cameras and video, there is no graphic evidence of
deliberate massacre. Images abound of victims killed or wounded
in crossfire — each one a tragedy — but that is urban warfare,
not genocide.
'Nor did Khadafy ever
threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The
"no mercy" warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as
reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libya's leader
promised amnesty for those "who throw their weapons away."
Khadafy even offered the rebels an escape route and open border
to Egypt, to avoid a fight "to the bitter end."'
On
February 23, 2011, just days into the Libyan uprising, Amnesty
International sparked a media frenzy when it began condemning
Libyan government actions, noting 'persistent reports of
mercenaries being brought in from African countries by the
Libyan leader to violently suppress the protests against him'.
A few days
later, Human Rights Watch
reported that they had 'seen no evidence of mercenaries
being used in eastern Libya. This contradicts widespread earlier
reports in the international media that African soldiers had
been flown in to fight rebels in the region as Muammar Gaddafi
sought to keep control'.
Genevieve
Garrigos, president of Amnesty International France, later
commented:
'Today we have to admit
that we have no evidence that Gaddafi employed mercenary
forces... we have no sign nor evidence to corroborate these
rumours.' (Forte, p.685)
Garrigos
repeated that Amnesty's investigators never found any
'mercenaries,' agreeing that their existence was a 'legend'
spread by the mass media.
Forte
describes 'the revolving door between Amnesty International-USA
and the US State department'. In November 2011, Amnesty
International-USA appointed Suzanne Nossel as its executive
director. From August 2009 to November 2011, Nossel had been the
US State Department's Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau
of International Organisation Affairs.
Luis
Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal
Court, caused more outrage when he
told the world's media that there was 'evidence' that
Gaddafi had distributed Viagra to his troops in order 'to
enhance the possibility to rape' and that Gaddafi had ordered
mass rape. Moreno-Ocampo insisted:
'We are getting
information that Qaddafi himself decided to rape' and that 'we
have information that there was a policy to rape in Libya those
who were against the government'.
US
Ambassador Susan Rice also
asserted that Gaddafi was supplying his troops with Viagra
to encourage mass rape. No evidence was supplied.
Forte
notes that US military and intelligence sources quickly
contradicted Rice, telling NBC News that 'there is no
evidence that Libyan military forces are being given Viagra and
engaging in systematic rape against women in rebel areas'.
Cherif
Bassiouni, who led a UN human rights inquiry into the situation
in Libya,
suggested that the Viagra and mass rape claim was the
product of 'massive hysteria'. Bassiouni's team 'uncovered only
four alleged cases' of rape and sexual abuse.
As Forte
writes with bitter irony, the propaganda surrounding the Libyan
war demands 'vigilance and scepticism in the face of the heady
claims of our own inherent goodness which can only find its
highest expression in the form of aerial bombardment'. (Forte,
pp.69-70)
Alas,
vigilance and scepticism are in short supply within the
corporate media.
This article was originally published at
Media Lens
Copyright © 2013 Media Lens.
No comments:
Post a Comment