MGG Pillai Commentary View

<< Previous || Next >>

The journalist poodle has become the barnyard dog in this propaganda war

DIFFERENCE OF OPINION, ESPECIALLY, in conflict is normal. To suggest the Al Qaeda is split, as the Guardian suggests yesterday (26 October), is not unusual. Just as there is a split between the United States and its allies on how to conduct the war in Iraq. But this is information war and one side is told its opponent is split. As if both sides are not. We see the split within the leaders and between the leaders and the people. The splits are reported in loving detail by the people who started as handmaidens of the war but the splits, mistakes, and doubts and their own credibility caused them to take a neutral stand. So, the United States and its allies assume the worst in their enemy, and reporters voice them in their colums. They do not bother with the insurgents who do not give press conferences as the Americans do. The Al Qaeda network has shown a sophistication in its operations, that how can you be sure that its split is deliberately fed to the Western journalists? What we have learnt of Al Qaeda and the insurgents are suppositions from Washington, London and other capitals, usually in the course of a propaganda onslaught. Those who are not on either side of the fence in Iraq and elsewhere see through this propaganda battle, and those directly not involved in Iraq take a neutral if not a partisan stand against the United States. This propaganda battle is to reassure their own people that all is well. The level of propaganda rises as the insurgents, in reality the Iraqi nationalist and the Sunni who detest, among other things invaders in their midst, make havoc of the invaders and gain support around the world. The US assistant secretary of public diplomacy recently toured the Muslim nations to gain support of the war, which she did not get whatever Malaysian newspapers wrote of the visit.

Her trip to Muslim nations is part of the response for having lost the propaganda war so early in the war. So diversions are brought in to mask the insecurities in the United States and its allies. There is the silly Judith Miller case in the United States. The journalists in the United States gnashed their teeth on her as if mattered, and so spend days discussing her actions when they should have been focussing of the war and its conduct. The Judith Miller case is viewed as affecting all journalists, but the journalist who was equally guilty goes free. I know more of the case than I want to know. I saw that as a diversion from the start, and in this I was right. The White House had its own spinmeister, whom the Press happily named but would not go further than that in the journalistic "tradition" that someone else must name him. So he is off the hook. Journalists hang on to such "traditions", and the spinmeister takes advantage of it. The affair is still on the news. CNN television news was still broadcasting the Miller affair last night (26 October) as if it affected the conduct of the war on terror. But for the White House, it is helpful because it diverts attention from the War in Iraq.

The Judith Miller case and the split in Al Qaeda are fair game for the White House spinmeister. It allows people's attention on the war to be forgotten, as it has in the past month. At least in the US newspapers. But the Judith Miller is reported as if it were a First Amendment (of the US constitution) violation, and is reported around the world in that fashion. But it is not. It is a diversion from the main problem. So Saddam Hussein's trial. From early references to him as Milosevic and Mandela, there is now talk of having the trial in another Middle Eastern country. I read this on several newspapers, and saw it on CNN and BBC, that it can only have come from an American government source. It is certainly not true that several journalists in Iraq thought of it at the same time. So, he is going to be a difficult opponent. There are several things wrong with the case. He is charged under a law that did not exist at the time the offences were allegedly committed. The United States thought it would charge him with one "crime" first, and he would collapse, and so the other charges would finish him completely. But the longer the case goes on, as Milosevic's case in the Hague, the more embarassed the West and more energised the Iraqi insurgents. It is victor's justice, however legal the proceedings. The killing of one defence lawyer is to warn the defendants that the victors still hold the trump card.They would like Saddam Hussein to die in the course of the trial for he could bring out Western collusion with him in the 30 years he had been in power. They had lost the propaganda battle here as well.

The Iraq constitution and the referendum is another. It is not going well as the US thought it would. The Sunni and the Iraqi nationalist reject it, because its federal nature splits the country. The West-appointed leaders, discuss the finer points of the constitution not with the people they believe have put them in power, but the Western governments which did. The people did not know what the constituon was about, but the latest dictator had demanded it. So they voted happily for the latest dictator with the same majority as they had the last. So the referendum was rigged so it won more than two thirds of the vote. I would have been surprised if they got less. They did not get the Sunni support, so the rules were changed to demand that a "no" vote could only be accepted if it got two thirds in the province voted "no". But should that be how it is. The constitution should not pass in any province if it did not get two lhirds of the votes. Rules have been redrawn on the fly so that the constitution would be accepted. But would it bring peace in a country already at civil war. CNN quoted a think tanker who said that the economy was improving. How could it when it was unsafe to be on the streets, and killed either by the insurgents or the US troops? But the think tanker was doing what was expected of him: he was on side of the White House on the war in Iraq, and did not talk about the situation on the ground.

The Arab Street does not watch the Western round-the-clock TV stations. They watch Al Jazeera. It begins an English service in March, so that the Arab Street views are known to others as well. The Americans have Al Hura, the Saudi Arabians have al-Arabiya but they are seen by the Arab street as propadanga channels. The BBC which had an Arab service, which it operated with Saudi money and closed it down because the paymasters wanted cuts in a programme it was making, comes into the picture by closing down ten language services to restart the Arab services, but this time on the own. But it won't be accepted as Al Jazeera is. Al Jazeera gets Al Qaeda's support, but it stays neutral, and it is a welcome change from the propaganda drivel the viewers are given by the Western agencies. Ironically, most of the journalists formerly worked for the BBC Arab service. To get it credibility, it has taken on Western journalistic icons like Sir David Frost on board for the English service. But it would broadcast in English a view different from what is now dished out. With all the Western icons and former TV journalists on board, it would get credibility among the English speaking as well.

That the US tries to limit Al Jazeera's reach is seen in shutting it out when it can. They were given the coordinates of the Kabil office. Long after, the US strafed the office, killing its correspondent. The Palestine hotel is bombed, and the Iraq insurgents blamed. But the US did not want journalists in Iraq, and the atrocity would divert attention. It did not work. The insurgents might still have done the bombing, but until the evidence of that is forthcoming, I would believe it is the US or its allies that did it. The British after all raided a police station under its control where two Marines, caught redhanded bombing a car, had been sent, and two Americans had been captured doing the same thing. The British and the Americans are quiet on why they did it. I was told only the Russians had reported the arrest of the Americans. That is because the US chose not to. Books now talk of the propaganda nature of the war in Vietnam. We cannot expect any less in Iraq. Who gains the propaganda war in Iraq wins. At present, the US is losing, and shorten the odds by taking out the journalists who sees with his eyes that what the US says is not the truth. The poodle journalists have become barnyard dogs, and can reduce their number only by killing or making their life difficult not by argument or propaganda.

M.G.G. Pillai
pillai@streamyx.com