A Media Lens reader responded to our recent media alert, Burning the Planet For Profit (December 6, 2005; http://www.medialens.org/alerts/05/051206_burning_the_planet.php ).
The reader had two main contentions:
1. That the human population today "is rising exponentially."
2. That "overpopulation" is"the main cause of environmental degradation."
In fact, according to the UN, the rate of increase of the world's population is slowing. Population will peak at around 9 billion sometime around 2050, and thereafter start falling. (See, e.g., Fred Pearce, 'Power to the People', Independent, October 8, 2003)
I agree with our reader that resources are being used unsustainably. But I believe he is wrong to write sweepingly that "overpopulation" is "the main cause of environmental degradation." I gave him a very brief summary as to why I think that view is wrong (essentially the global political-economic system ensures inequitable distribution, oppression, huge waste and profligate ecological 'footprints'). Rather than my expanding at length on the detailed reasons, I'd like to flag up an essay, 'Population?!', by Michael Albert. I think his analysis is careful and worth pondering:
http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/albert3.htm
As Albert concludes:
"...there is no evidence that current poverty, hunger, and environmental degradation etc. owe their origins or tenacity in any significant degree to a population problem, but, instead, the evidence is abundant that these particular crimes against humanity are rooted in oppressive institutional structures and the abhorrent misallocations of labor and energy and maldistribution of product that they foster."
Tuesday, 13 December 2005
Wednesday, 16 November 2005
IoS letters page: an interesting case study in omission
November 6, 2005
Printed version:
Credit to Andrew Buncombe for pointing out that the Bush
administration may yet be engulfed by the scandal of building its case for war upon lies (Bush faces his Watergate, 30 October). But your reporter skirts cautiously around the truth when he says, following Lewis Libby's indictment,that "using false statements and twisted information to mislead a nation and launch that war is a greater crime than orchestrating a dirty tricks campaign against your political rivals".
Initiating a war of aggression was recognised by the Nuremberg prosecutors as "the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
David Cromwell, Southampton
Submitted version:
Credit to Andrew Buncombe for pointing out that the Bush
administration may yet be engulfed by the scandal of building its case for war upon lies (Bush faces his Watergate, 30 October). But your reporter skirts cautiously around the truth when he suggests merely that "using false statements and twisted information to mislead a nation and launch that war is a greater crime than orchestrating a dirty tricks campaign against your political rivals".
In fact, initiating a war of aggression was recognised by the prosecutors at the Nuremberg trials as "the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." The Nuremberg prosecutors also declared against "the planning, preparation, initiation and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of
international treaties, agreements and assurances". A wealth of evidence shows that George Bush, Tony Blair and their advisers did just that. If the mythical role of the fourth estate in challenging power actually meant anything, then the mainstream media, including your newspaper, would not shirk from pointing out such obvious truths.
David Cromwell, Southampton
---
No prizes for figuring out why the end was chopped off.
Printed version:
Credit to Andrew Buncombe for pointing out that the Bush
administration may yet be engulfed by the scandal of building its case for war upon lies (Bush faces his Watergate, 30 October). But your reporter skirts cautiously around the truth when he says, following Lewis Libby's indictment,that "using false statements and twisted information to mislead a nation and launch that war is a greater crime than orchestrating a dirty tricks campaign against your political rivals".
Initiating a war of aggression was recognised by the Nuremberg prosecutors as "the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
David Cromwell, Southampton
Submitted version:
Credit to Andrew Buncombe for pointing out that the Bush
administration may yet be engulfed by the scandal of building its case for war upon lies (Bush faces his Watergate, 30 October). But your reporter skirts cautiously around the truth when he suggests merely that "using false statements and twisted information to mislead a nation and launch that war is a greater crime than orchestrating a dirty tricks campaign against your political rivals".
In fact, initiating a war of aggression was recognised by the prosecutors at the Nuremberg trials as "the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." The Nuremberg prosecutors also declared against "the planning, preparation, initiation and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of
international treaties, agreements and assurances". A wealth of evidence shows that George Bush, Tony Blair and their advisers did just that. If the mythical role of the fourth estate in challenging power actually meant anything, then the mainstream media, including your newspaper, would not shirk from pointing out such obvious truths.
David Cromwell, Southampton
---
No prizes for figuring out why the end was chopped off.
Tuesday, 1 November 2005
The corporate-led obsession with "economic growth"
To: letters@independent.co.uk
Dear Sir,
Few rational readers would disagree with any of your proposed measures ('Climate change: 10 ways to save the world', 1 November). But what about the elephant in the room: the corporate-led obsession with "economic growth"? If we factor in the negative impacts of increasing global poverty, disease and inequality; environmental degradation and climate-related disasters; and imperialistic wars waged for strategic dominance and access to natural resources and markets, the global economy has probably been in free-fall for decades. We need to shift to a new participatory and equitable system of economics that values people and planet.
yours faithfully,
David Cromwell
Dear Sir,
Few rational readers would disagree with any of your proposed measures ('Climate change: 10 ways to save the world', 1 November). But what about the elephant in the room: the corporate-led obsession with "economic growth"? If we factor in the negative impacts of increasing global poverty, disease and inequality; environmental degradation and climate-related disasters; and imperialistic wars waged for strategic dominance and access to natural resources and markets, the global economy has probably been in free-fall for decades. We need to shift to a new participatory and equitable system of economics that values people and planet.
yours faithfully,
David Cromwell
Thursday, 8 September 2005
Cheerleading the Climate Criminals: exchange with a reader
This exchange, following last week's two-part alert on climate, may be of interest.
DC
===
----- Original Message -----
From:
To: editor@medialens.org
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 1:08 PM
Subject: Cheerleading the Climate Criminals
Dear Editor
Though I have little faith in Tony Blair's integrity, and have relayed
your concerns, some of your criticisms did seem to be taken out of
context, particularly that of Sir John Houghton in the lead-up to the
G8 summit. It is sometimes more helpful to appeal to someone's better
side (which is what Sir John seems to me to have been doing) than to
condemn his failings.
What is particularly significant and needs publicising is how the
media have condemned Bush for failing to help after Katrina but not
for his insane contribution to the global warming which empowered it.
No good preaching to the converted: the American public needs to
reject on masse its current President and all he stands for. The
only way I see of doing that is to appeal to the integrity of the
American media at this critical moment, rather than to simply condemn
it.
[Name withheld]
---
From: "Media Lens editor"
To:
Subject: Re: Cheerleading the Climate Criminals
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 12:10:32 +0100
Dear [Name withheld],
Many thanks for sending us your thoughts, and for relaying our
concerns - much appreciated.
Let's start with John Houghton who is a very gifted climate physicist,
leader (former chair of the IPCC science working group) and
communicator; and there is no doubting his passionate commitment to
countering human-induced climate change. I accept that it's important
to be gentle with people; but we also have to be robust in examining
statements and arguments that are promoted in the mainstream media,
and society generally. So, when commentators, Houghton included,
promote the myth that Blair is well-intentioned, or that the G8 is an
institution that could possibly be part of the solution to impending
climate chaos, then they need to be challenged vigorously. Of course,
it does not mean that we are attacking those commentators personally,
a misunderstanding that crops up repeatedly.
You mention the 'integrity of the American media'. I'm not sure that
that it exists, to be frank. By the way, we focus on the British media
as we're based in the UK, but in both countries the media operate
largely as integral components of concentrated economic power -
because that's exactly what they are. Ed Herman and Noam Chomsky did a
powerful job of explaining this by means of a 'propaganda model' in
their classic book, Manufacturing Consent. You can read an overview of
their ideas here:
www.medialens.org/articles/the_articles/
articles_2001/dc_propaganda_model.html
There +are+ openings here and there in the media for more honest and
couraegous reporting and commentary, and we hope to nudge media
professionals in the right direction; but it's not our primary focus,
as we've tried to explain over the years in our alerts. Our primary
aim is to encourage the public to see the insidious and systemic
corruption of truth by corporate media, and the need for a
compassionate revolution that would transform all sectors of society,
not just the media. Relying on the supposed integrity of the
mainstream media, who have helped bring us to the edge of the abyss,
is tragically, the wrong route to survival.
Thanks again for writing.
best wishes,
David Cromwell
DC
===
----- Original Message -----
From:
To: editor@medialens.org
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 1:08 PM
Subject: Cheerleading the Climate Criminals
Dear Editor
Though I have little faith in Tony Blair's integrity, and have relayed
your concerns, some of your criticisms did seem to be taken out of
context, particularly that of Sir John Houghton in the lead-up to the
G8 summit. It is sometimes more helpful to appeal to someone's better
side (which is what Sir John seems to me to have been doing) than to
condemn his failings.
What is particularly significant and needs publicising is how the
media have condemned Bush for failing to help after Katrina but not
for his insane contribution to the global warming which empowered it.
No good preaching to the converted: the American public needs to
reject on masse its current President and all he stands for. The
only way I see of doing that is to appeal to the integrity of the
American media at this critical moment, rather than to simply condemn
it.
[Name withheld]
---
From: "Media Lens editor"
To:
Subject: Re: Cheerleading the Climate Criminals
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 12:10:32 +0100
Dear [Name withheld],
Many thanks for sending us your thoughts, and for relaying our
concerns - much appreciated.
Let's start with John Houghton who is a very gifted climate physicist,
leader (former chair of the IPCC science working group) and
communicator; and there is no doubting his passionate commitment to
countering human-induced climate change. I accept that it's important
to be gentle with people; but we also have to be robust in examining
statements and arguments that are promoted in the mainstream media,
and society generally. So, when commentators, Houghton included,
promote the myth that Blair is well-intentioned, or that the G8 is an
institution that could possibly be part of the solution to impending
climate chaos, then they need to be challenged vigorously. Of course,
it does not mean that we are attacking those commentators personally,
a misunderstanding that crops up repeatedly.
You mention the 'integrity of the American media'. I'm not sure that
that it exists, to be frank. By the way, we focus on the British media
as we're based in the UK, but in both countries the media operate
largely as integral components of concentrated economic power -
because that's exactly what they are. Ed Herman and Noam Chomsky did a
powerful job of explaining this by means of a 'propaganda model' in
their classic book, Manufacturing Consent. You can read an overview of
their ideas here:
www.medialens.org/articles/the_articles/
articles_2001/dc_propaganda_model.html
There +are+ openings here and there in the media for more honest and
couraegous reporting and commentary, and we hope to nudge media
professionals in the right direction; but it's not our primary focus,
as we've tried to explain over the years in our alerts. Our primary
aim is to encourage the public to see the insidious and systemic
corruption of truth by corporate media, and the need for a
compassionate revolution that would transform all sectors of society,
not just the media. Relying on the supposed integrity of the
mainstream media, who have helped bring us to the edge of the abyss,
is tragically, the wrong route to survival.
Thanks again for writing.
best wishes,
David Cromwell
Blair notches up another kill
To: letters@independent.co.uk
Dear Sir,
Terri Judd's front page story was titled "The immigrant who died for Britain" (7 September, 2005).What a sick travesty. "The immigrant who died for Blair" would be more accurate. The tragic death of Donal Meade would never have occurred were it not for an illegal and immoral invasion-occupation in pursuit of US geostrategic power, with the UK in its usual shameful supporting role. Kindly stop colluding in media deceptions that mask this reality.
David Cromwell
Dear Sir,
Terri Judd's front page story was titled "The immigrant who died for Britain" (7 September, 2005).What a sick travesty. "The immigrant who died for Blair" would be more accurate. The tragic death of Donal Meade would never have occurred were it not for an illegal and immoral invasion-occupation in pursuit of US geostrategic power, with the UK in its usual shameful supporting role. Kindly stop colluding in media deceptions that mask this reality.
David Cromwell
Thursday, 21 July 2005
Estimates of Iraqi deaths
To: letters@independent.co.uk
21 July, 2005
Dear Sir,
You reported that Iraq Body Count and the Oxford Research Group have documented almost 25,000 Iraqi civilian deaths since the US-led invasion in March 2003 ('Iraq conflict claims 34 civilian lives each day', July 20). This has been misleadingly compared with the earlier Lancet estimate of 100,000 deaths.
Your news story stated: "The only previous attempt to assess the level of civilian casualties was published in The Lancet medical journal last October and put the figure at 100,000, based on a survey of Iraqi households. Although it was seized upon by opponents of the war as justifying their worst fears, its methodology was subsequently criticised."
Criticised by whom? In reality, the government and its supporters orchestrated a shameful propaganda campaign in response to the Lancet study.
The IBC/ORG report provides a baseline of the minimum estimate of civilian deaths. As the authors explained, their report "is a compilation of recorded deaths, not an estimate or projection". It is therefore not directly comparable with the Lancet estimate of 98,000 deaths.
The Lancet study was a rigorously peer-reviewed article in one of the world's most prestigious scientific journals. Before publication, its authors had already had to demonstrate that their methodology, analysis and conclusions were sound. No amount of government spin can change that.
yours, etc.
David Cromwell
21 July, 2005
Dear Sir,
You reported that Iraq Body Count and the Oxford Research Group have documented almost 25,000 Iraqi civilian deaths since the US-led invasion in March 2003 ('Iraq conflict claims 34 civilian lives each day', July 20). This has been misleadingly compared with the earlier Lancet estimate of 100,000 deaths.
Your news story stated: "The only previous attempt to assess the level of civilian casualties was published in The Lancet medical journal last October and put the figure at 100,000, based on a survey of Iraqi households. Although it was seized upon by opponents of the war as justifying their worst fears, its methodology was subsequently criticised."
Criticised by whom? In reality, the government and its supporters orchestrated a shameful propaganda campaign in response to the Lancet study.
The IBC/ORG report provides a baseline of the minimum estimate of civilian deaths. As the authors explained, their report "is a compilation of recorded deaths, not an estimate or projection". It is therefore not directly comparable with the Lancet estimate of 98,000 deaths.
The Lancet study was a rigorously peer-reviewed article in one of the world's most prestigious scientific journals. Before publication, its authors had already had to demonstrate that their methodology, analysis and conclusions were sound. No amount of government spin can change that.
yours, etc.
David Cromwell
Friday, 10 June 2005
Climate; a planet saturated in corporate interests
To: letters@guardian.co.uk
Dear Sir,
Robin Cook notes that it "is a tragedy that at this moment in history the world has to negotiate with an American administration that is saturated in US oil interests" ( If we make global warming history we'll all be better off, 10 June).
However, Cook overlooks a tragedy that is closer to home: the British government is itself saturated in UK oil, and other UK corporate, interests. Moreover, he ignores the tragedy that the British government is colluding with the American administration in promoting corporate interests around the planet - and all at the expense of global climate and the struggle against global poverty.
I look forward to Cook's follow-up articles on the unsustainable nature of endless economic 'growth' - in fact rising economic damage - on a finite planet; not to mention the obstructive tactics of big business to real sustainabilty, and the billions spent by the public relations industry in promoting endless consumer consumption.
Maintaining a media silence on these vital issues will only lead to disaster on a planetary scale.
yours,
David Cromwell
Dear Sir,
Robin Cook notes that it "is a tragedy that at this moment in history the world has to negotiate with an American administration that is saturated in US oil interests" ( If we make global warming history we'll all be better off, 10 June).
However, Cook overlooks a tragedy that is closer to home: the British government is itself saturated in UK oil, and other UK corporate, interests. Moreover, he ignores the tragedy that the British government is colluding with the American administration in promoting corporate interests around the planet - and all at the expense of global climate and the struggle against global poverty.
I look forward to Cook's follow-up articles on the unsustainable nature of endless economic 'growth' - in fact rising economic damage - on a finite planet; not to mention the obstructive tactics of big business to real sustainabilty, and the billions spent by the public relations industry in promoting endless consumer consumption.
Maintaining a media silence on these vital issues will only lead to disaster on a planetary scale.
yours,
David Cromwell
Thursday, 5 May 2005
A tragic collusion in war crimes
On Friday morning, this country will likely wake to find itself still governed by a major war criminal - a dissembling Prime Minister who, Macbeth-like, has waded in the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed by war and sanctions.
What will this tragedy say about our sycophantic news media, academics and sundry pillars of society who collude in a cruel deception about the virtues of western "democracy"?
Sunday, 10 April 2005
Dangerous questions
In response to Michael McCarthy's recent despair over climate change (Independent, 7 March; but more so his article in The Tablet last month), Tom Barker is correct to point to the current absence of radical greens and to the "impotence of a correspondent who can only report" (letters, 10 March). But the deeper problem is that correspondents do not even report what they should be reporting.
Where are the reports addressing the unsustainable nature of endless economic growth on a finite planet? Or drawing links between likely climate catastrophe and the damaging core practices of global corporations and investors? Or highlighting the obstructive tactics of big business to truly sustainable policies? Or pointing out the billions spent by business and the public relations industry in promoting unsustainable consumer consumption?
Mainstream media, with its heavy reliance on advertising revenue to remain afloat, is failing to alert the public to the true nature of the global crisis we are in. The profit-led media is part of the same system of state-corporate power that is leading this planet to disaster; unless the public wakes up in time.
Where are the reports addressing the unsustainable nature of endless economic growth on a finite planet? Or drawing links between likely climate catastrophe and the damaging core practices of global corporations and investors? Or highlighting the obstructive tactics of big business to truly sustainable policies? Or pointing out the billions spent by business and the public relations industry in promoting unsustainable consumer consumption?
Mainstream media, with its heavy reliance on advertising revenue to remain afloat, is failing to alert the public to the true nature of the global crisis we are in. The profit-led media is part of the same system of state-corporate power that is leading this planet to disaster; unless the public wakes up in time.
Monday, 4 April 2005
Evidence of US war crimes in Fallujah: BBC news silence
To: Helen Boaden, BBC director of news, helen.boaden@bbc.co.uk
Dear Helen Boaden,
I hope you are well.
You may recall that I emailed you on 15th February regarding evidence of US war crimes in Fallujah, reported by independent journalist Dahr Jamail. See:
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/dispatches/000196.php
I asked, via the BBC Press Office, whether you would be investigating such reports and addressing the evidence in BBC news bulletins. You responded on 23rd February via a BBC spokesperson:
"The conduct of coalition forces has been examined at length by BBC programmes, and if justified, that will continue to be the case."
You thus avoided responding to the specific evidence I quoted, including the disturbing report of the alleged killing by US forces of a six year-old boy who was crying over the corpses of his parents. A follow-up query, submitted via the BBC Press Office on 25th February, asking which BBC programmes had addressed the conduct of coalition forces, including the specific war crimes evidence in Fallujah, went unanswered.
Further evidence of US war crimes continues to emerge, as Aljazeera reported yesterday at:
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=7216
As the report says: "Dr. Khalid ash-Shaykhli, an official at Iraq’s health ministry, said that the U.S. military used internationally banned weapons during its deadly offensive in the city of Fallujah."
Again, I have not seen this covered in BBC news. Perhaps I have missed it. Surely it should be prominently featured in the headlines of your main news bulletins at 1, 6 and 10 o'clock?
Could you possibly please explain why the BBC news has apparently yet to broadcast any reports regarding evidence of contraventions of international law by US forces in Fallujah? Perhaps you are already investigating such harrowing evidence?
I look forward to hearing from you.
best wishes,
David Cromwell
Dear Helen Boaden,
I hope you are well.
You may recall that I emailed you on 15th February regarding evidence of US war crimes in Fallujah, reported by independent journalist Dahr Jamail. See:
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/dispatches/000196.php
I asked, via the BBC Press Office, whether you would be investigating such reports and addressing the evidence in BBC news bulletins. You responded on 23rd February via a BBC spokesperson:
"The conduct of coalition forces has been examined at length by BBC programmes, and if justified, that will continue to be the case."
You thus avoided responding to the specific evidence I quoted, including the disturbing report of the alleged killing by US forces of a six year-old boy who was crying over the corpses of his parents. A follow-up query, submitted via the BBC Press Office on 25th February, asking which BBC programmes had addressed the conduct of coalition forces, including the specific war crimes evidence in Fallujah, went unanswered.
Further evidence of US war crimes continues to emerge, as Aljazeera reported yesterday at:
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=7216
As the report says: "Dr. Khalid ash-Shaykhli, an official at Iraq’s health ministry, said that the U.S. military used internationally banned weapons during its deadly offensive in the city of Fallujah."
Again, I have not seen this covered in BBC news. Perhaps I have missed it. Surely it should be prominently featured in the headlines of your main news bulletins at 1, 6 and 10 o'clock?
Could you possibly please explain why the BBC news has apparently yet to broadcast any reports regarding evidence of contraventions of international law by US forces in Fallujah? Perhaps you are already investigating such harrowing evidence?
I look forward to hearing from you.
best wishes,
David Cromwell
Saturday, 12 March 2005
Completely and utterly unthreatening
Alan Rusbridger, editor of the Guardian, said in a speech recently:
“Other newspaper groups have deeper pockets, which we sometimes envy. But I suspect that all my colleagues in editorial chairs have at some point turned an envious eye on the complete and utter freedom Guardian editors have, and have always had, thanks to its Trust ownership.”*
"Complete and utter freedom"?! Well, yes, if you like. If you manage to get to the editorial chair, then it's highly likely that you've already proved that you're not going to do anything too dangerous with that freedom.
(*Hugo Young Lecture, ‘What are newspapers for?’, Alan Rusbridger, Editor of The Guardian, Sheffield University, March 9h, 2005, The Inaugural Hugo Young Lecture and third University Centenary Lecture)
Wednesday, May 04, 2005, 18:58
"Enhanced impartiality": another media myth gets an airing
Tim Luckhurst is a former Today reporter/producer and was - very briefly, if I recall - editor of The Scotsman. He's a media pundit cropping up in all kinds of corners. In the Daily Mail yesterday he opined:
"Political Editor Andrew Marr has dismayed licence-payers with apologias for New Labour in general and Tony Blair in particular. His repeated insistence that the Prime Minister did not lie about the legal advice he was given on the Iraq War has taken political coverage to a new low.
"Such conscientious rewriting of history deserves a place in George Orwell's 1984, not on a national television station funded by the taxpayer."
(Tim Luckhurst, 'As John Humphrys announces his retirement . . . The giant the BBC hasn't got the guts to replace', Daily Mail, 3 May, 2005)
Nice touch to lean on George Orwell, a great hero of Marr's apparently. That will have stung - possibly.
Of course, Luckhurst does rather shoot himself in the foot when he goes on to describe Jeremy Paxman in the same article as: "the only other BBC presenter [along with John Humphrys] to have emerged from the election campaign with his reputation for impartiality enhanced."
That will be the great rottweiler who somehow couldn't manage to expose Blair's war crimes when interviewing a Prime Minister steeped in the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (and other unpeople in Afghanistan, Serbia, Kosovo, ...)
“Other newspaper groups have deeper pockets, which we sometimes envy. But I suspect that all my colleagues in editorial chairs have at some point turned an envious eye on the complete and utter freedom Guardian editors have, and have always had, thanks to its Trust ownership.”*
"Complete and utter freedom"?! Well, yes, if you like. If you manage to get to the editorial chair, then it's highly likely that you've already proved that you're not going to do anything too dangerous with that freedom.
(*Hugo Young Lecture, ‘What are newspapers for?’, Alan Rusbridger, Editor of The Guardian, Sheffield University, March 9h, 2005, The Inaugural Hugo Young Lecture and third University Centenary Lecture)
Wednesday, May 04, 2005, 18:58
"Enhanced impartiality": another media myth gets an airing
Tim Luckhurst is a former Today reporter/producer and was - very briefly, if I recall - editor of The Scotsman. He's a media pundit cropping up in all kinds of corners. In the Daily Mail yesterday he opined:
"Political Editor Andrew Marr has dismayed licence-payers with apologias for New Labour in general and Tony Blair in particular. His repeated insistence that the Prime Minister did not lie about the legal advice he was given on the Iraq War has taken political coverage to a new low.
"Such conscientious rewriting of history deserves a place in George Orwell's 1984, not on a national television station funded by the taxpayer."
(Tim Luckhurst, 'As John Humphrys announces his retirement . . . The giant the BBC hasn't got the guts to replace', Daily Mail, 3 May, 2005)
Nice touch to lean on George Orwell, a great hero of Marr's apparently. That will have stung - possibly.
Of course, Luckhurst does rather shoot himself in the foot when he goes on to describe Jeremy Paxman in the same article as: "the only other BBC presenter [along with John Humphrys] to have emerged from the election campaign with his reputation for impartiality enhanced."
That will be the great rottweiler who somehow couldn't manage to expose Blair's war crimes when interviewing a Prime Minister steeped in the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (and other unpeople in Afghanistan, Serbia, Kosovo, ...)
Thursday, 10 March 2005
War criminals and the "right people" in Washington.
News reports today have announced that Ramush Haradinaj, the 36-year-old former prime minister of Kosovo, has been flown to The Hague to face charges of war crimes. Who is Ramush Haradinaj?
Described in some news reports as "flamboyant" and "colourful", Ramush Haradinaj was a commander in the Kosovo Liberation Army. He was then the head of the KLA's political successor, the Alliance for the Future of Kosovo and he was elected prime minister last December.
His name frequently crops up in reports of murder, shootings and 'disappearances' in Kosovo. The Scotsman reported in 2000 that he was injured in a firefight in western Kosovo, the "savagely violent post-war province". Interestingly, he ended up in a US military hospital at Landstuhl in Germany.
"Haradinaj looked to be the sort of guy that we might see our way to backing," said one senior international official who spoke on condition of anonymity [of course!]. "After the launch of his party, he was due to go to Washington to meet up with the right people," said another western official. (Christian Jennings, 'Western-backed Kosovar Albanian politician shot', 11 July, 2000, The Scotsman)
The Observer described him in the same year as "the key US military and intelligence asset in Kosovo during the civil war and the Nato bombing campaign that followed." He is "implicated in murder, drug-trafficking and war crimes."
British officials described him as "one of the few former commanders of the KLA who can deliver." (Nick Wood, US 'covered up' for Kosovo ally, 10 September, 2000, Observer )
One former British soldier, who served with the Kosovo Verification Mission described him as "a psychopath":
"He would beat his own men to maintain a kind of military discipline....Someone would pass him some information and he would disappear for two hours. The end result would be several bodies in a ditch." (Wood, ibid.)
While these 'disappearances' were taking place, Haradinaj maintained daily contact with American military personnel in the US. These links were then taken over by Nato at the beginning of the bombing campaign in Kosovo.
Tom Walker reported in the Sunday Times that Robin Cook, then foreign secretary, met with Haradinaj on a trip to Kosovo in April, 2001. Walker added:
"Diplomats in Pristina said Haradinaj entered politics last year at the behest of Britain and America, which wanted to see the KLA's support base split. 'He said it was too early for independence,' said a European official introduced to Haradinaj. 'He was coached to say what was needed.' Last April Haradinaj made a fundraising trip to Washington." (Walker, 'Cook held talks with war crime suspect', Sunday Times', 29 April, 2001)
The Foreign Office, ever 'pragmatic', saw no difficulty with any of this. It "insisted that Haradinaj had been reminded of his democratic responsibilities." Very reassuring. "There are periods in the cycle when you're moving to a democratic future from a violent past," said a spokesman. "There are no hard and fast rules on who you should talk to. Until indicted, they are straightforward politicians." Need we comment on this?
Jared Israel, in an eye-opening online article, explains more of the background to this US/UK-backed war crimes suspect. As Israel notes, The Times "prettifies the ugly fact that the U.S. and British governments coached Haradinaj and funded him, thereby thrusting him into politics, instead of jail, where he belonged." ( 'Which Terrorists Are Worse? Al-Qaeda? Or the KLA?', 12 December, 2001)
Today, the BBC news website neglects to mention any link between Haradinaj and western politicians (BBC news online, 'Kosovo ex-PM flies in for trial' , 9 March, 2005 )
And the BBC News at One politely described Ramush Haradinaj's appearance at The Hague on war crimes charges as
"embarrassing" to western politicians who had supported him in the past.
It is examples like this, multiplied countless of times every year, that bury uncomfortable truths out of sight.
Described in some news reports as "flamboyant" and "colourful", Ramush Haradinaj was a commander in the Kosovo Liberation Army. He was then the head of the KLA's political successor, the Alliance for the Future of Kosovo and he was elected prime minister last December.
His name frequently crops up in reports of murder, shootings and 'disappearances' in Kosovo. The Scotsman reported in 2000 that he was injured in a firefight in western Kosovo, the "savagely violent post-war province". Interestingly, he ended up in a US military hospital at Landstuhl in Germany.
"Haradinaj looked to be the sort of guy that we might see our way to backing," said one senior international official who spoke on condition of anonymity [of course!]. "After the launch of his party, he was due to go to Washington to meet up with the right people," said another western official. (Christian Jennings, 'Western-backed Kosovar Albanian politician shot', 11 July, 2000, The Scotsman)
The Observer described him in the same year as "the key US military and intelligence asset in Kosovo during the civil war and the Nato bombing campaign that followed." He is "implicated in murder, drug-trafficking and war crimes."
British officials described him as "one of the few former commanders of the KLA who can deliver." (Nick Wood, US 'covered up' for Kosovo ally, 10 September, 2000, Observer )
One former British soldier, who served with the Kosovo Verification Mission described him as "a psychopath":
"He would beat his own men to maintain a kind of military discipline....Someone would pass him some information and he would disappear for two hours. The end result would be several bodies in a ditch." (Wood, ibid.)
While these 'disappearances' were taking place, Haradinaj maintained daily contact with American military personnel in the US. These links were then taken over by Nato at the beginning of the bombing campaign in Kosovo.
Tom Walker reported in the Sunday Times that Robin Cook, then foreign secretary, met with Haradinaj on a trip to Kosovo in April, 2001. Walker added:
"Diplomats in Pristina said Haradinaj entered politics last year at the behest of Britain and America, which wanted to see the KLA's support base split. 'He said it was too early for independence,' said a European official introduced to Haradinaj. 'He was coached to say what was needed.' Last April Haradinaj made a fundraising trip to Washington." (Walker, 'Cook held talks with war crime suspect', Sunday Times', 29 April, 2001)
The Foreign Office, ever 'pragmatic', saw no difficulty with any of this. It "insisted that Haradinaj had been reminded of his democratic responsibilities." Very reassuring. "There are periods in the cycle when you're moving to a democratic future from a violent past," said a spokesman. "There are no hard and fast rules on who you should talk to. Until indicted, they are straightforward politicians." Need we comment on this?
Jared Israel, in an eye-opening online article, explains more of the background to this US/UK-backed war crimes suspect. As Israel notes, The Times "prettifies the ugly fact that the U.S. and British governments coached Haradinaj and funded him, thereby thrusting him into politics, instead of jail, where he belonged." ( 'Which Terrorists Are Worse? Al-Qaeda? Or the KLA?', 12 December, 2001)
Today, the BBC news website neglects to mention any link between Haradinaj and western politicians (BBC news online, 'Kosovo ex-PM flies in for trial' , 9 March, 2005 )
And the BBC News at One politely described Ramush Haradinaj's appearance at The Hague on war crimes charges as
"embarrassing" to western politicians who had supported him in the past.
It is examples like this, multiplied countless of times every year, that bury uncomfortable truths out of sight.
Monday, 7 March 2005
Cryptic gestures in the face of global climate catastrophe
A comment piece in today's Independent by the environment editor Michael McCarthy reads very much like a response to those who have emailed him recently following his despairing article in The Tablet (see media alert "Is the Earth Really Finished?", 1 March, 2005).
McCarthy writes, in rather vague terms, of the need for a global Manhattan Project: not a new idea, and reminiscent of Al Gore's call for a global Marshall Plan in his 1992 book, "Earth in the Balance". And no mention of the powerful profit-led interests that would obstruct such a move with every fibre of their being. But, yes, it will likely take something of that worldwide magnitude and commitment to turn things around (just don't expect world leaders to hand it to us on a plate).
And still no mention of the proposal of contraction and convergence, which is the logical and equitable global framework for achieving the necessary cuts in greenhouse gas emissions (www.gci.org.uk). Why is McCarthy trying so hard to avoid mentioning it?
The article is a classic case of what David Edwards calls cryptic gesturing in the direction of the truth.
McCarthy writes, in rather vague terms, of the need for a global Manhattan Project: not a new idea, and reminiscent of Al Gore's call for a global Marshall Plan in his 1992 book, "Earth in the Balance". And no mention of the powerful profit-led interests that would obstruct such a move with every fibre of their being. But, yes, it will likely take something of that worldwide magnitude and commitment to turn things around (just don't expect world leaders to hand it to us on a plate).
And still no mention of the proposal of contraction and convergence, which is the logical and equitable global framework for achieving the necessary cuts in greenhouse gas emissions (www.gci.org.uk). Why is McCarthy trying so hard to avoid mentioning it?
The article is a classic case of what David Edwards calls cryptic gesturing in the direction of the truth.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
