Australia's role in US wars

Why does the mass media support false government narratives that justify our support or participation in deadly wars? Media analyst, Jeremy Salt and Susan Dirgham of Australians for Reconciliation in Syria, explore this perplexing question that shapes our times and our future.

Why does the mass media support false government narratives that justify our support or participation in deadly wars? Media analyst, Jeremy Salt and Susan Dirgham of Australians for Reconciliation in Syria, explore this perplexing question that shapes our times and our future.

This article is summary plus transcript from the video of Part Two of Politics and war in Syria: Susan Dirgham interviews Jeremy Salt. Susan Dirham is convener of Australians for Reconciliation in Syria (AMRIS) and Jeremy Salt is a scholar of Media propaganda and the Middle East.

SUSAN DIRGHAM: Explains how Syrian society is secular, how women have freedom there, and that it is predominantly secular. For her it is very comparable to Australian society. So why don’t Australians know this? Furthermore, the Sunnis in Syria, who are in the majority, do not welcome the extremism that is being brought into the country.

Mystery of mass media’s motivation in supporting false government narratives

JEREMY SALT: Relates the problem back to the mass media again, ( as in Part One of this series). What people know about Syria is what the media chooses to tell them. There is a huge question about media ethics. Balance, objectivity are very big questions, which relate to media-ownership and the way the media operates generally. If we think about Australia, something close to 70 % of the print media is owned and operated by Rupert Murdoch. And we saw from what happened in England, how corrupt the Murdoch organisation can be, with the wire-tapping, the phone-tapping and all the rest of it. Murdoch himself is ultra, ultra conservative, very pro-Israeli. He is anti all the things we’re talking about and Murdoch runs his newspaper in the same way. The Australian newspaper, for example, is more or less like a free market Pravda.. It’s tightly controlled. There are gate-keepers. So all of this fits into the general context of the questions you are asking about why the media does what it does. The media will not say those things you are talking about - of course it won’t – because it disrupts the narrative. It doesn’t want people to know that women have freedom in Syria and that Syria is way ahead of most Middle Eastern countries in terms of women’s individual freedoms. Of course, if you are involved in political activity against the government, you’re in trouble. We know that. Well there is a good reason for that. Syria has been under siege for a long, long period of time. So the media is not going to bring out those positive aspects. But the interesting thing is, why does the media pick up a government narrative and reproduce it? Why? This is the real mystery. Why? I mean they did this over the Iraq war. It was seamless. 2003. It was very obvious that what Bush, Blair, Colin Powel were saying was without any factual basis. It was all propaganda. Blair’s dodgy dossier, all the statements they made about weapons of mass destruction, had absolutely no evidentiary basis. And, if you were a journalist, you should have been able to see that. I mean, a child could have seen it. So, where is the truth here? There is no truth. They couldn’t prove it, and yet they went with this government narrative. And then we have a war, which resulted in the destruction of a country, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, and dispossession of many, many others. And at the end of it, when they’ve hunted for their weapons of mass destruction, and haven’t found them – because they weren’t there – the two papers I know of, the New York Times and the Washington Post, said, ‘Oh, we were wrong. We’re sorry.’ But this was another lie. Because they weren’t wrong. That wasn’t the explanation. The reason was they did not ask questions about the government narrative.

And so, after that incredible propaganda operation, I thought, well, that’s got to be it. Then along comes Syria – and they do the same thing all over again!

Why does the media do it? How does it interest the media to portray the Syrian war in such a fashion? The Guardian, for example, which is one of the worst culprits, why was the Guardian’s reporting up to this point so shocking? Anything a ‘rebel’ (so-called) or ‘activist’ said, the Guardian would snap up and publish. So why is the Guardian doing this? Does the Guardian have the same kind of antagonism towards Syria that the British Government has for its own strategic reasons? Because England lies with [?is allies with] America and America wants to bring down the Syrian Government, partly because Israel wants to bring down the Syrian Government – all these reasons. But why is the media going along with it? What are they getting out of it? Are they getting money? Why? How is it in their interests.

SUSAN DIRGHAM: Is it because it’s a 9-5 job and …

JEREMY SALT: No, it’s not that. It’s something to do with the culture. It’s very hard for me to put my finger on it. Why they would do this. But it’s a pattern. That’s the whole point. It’s a pattern. It’s not an incidental thing. It’s not an aberration [….] And [they] will do the same thing with Iran. It’s like they have bought the government line in America and in England, on a whole range of issues.

SUSAN DIRGHAM: Do they also help determine the government line?

JEREMY SALT: Well, there’s always interplay. […] But we have to ask the question about responsibility in the media. What is their responsibility? Where does it lie? What is the media there for? Well, it’s there to make money. To make a profit. If it doesn’t make a profit, it’s not going to survive. That’s one thing. But what else is the media supposed to be doing? The old-fashioned idea is the media was the watchdog of the public interest. And possibly that was more true up to about the 1970s, 1980s, than it is now. And then the newspapers started to go downhill, partly because of the internet, because people weren’t reading so much. They were watching television. They were doing social media, and all the rest of it. So, the quality of newspapers declined and they started – to keep up sales – they were doing different things. Infotainment. Celebrity gossip. All the rest of it. The quality of analysis and reporting fell. But we’re not really talking about that so much as we are talking about what should be reasonably good quality newspapers, like the Guardian, like the Washington Post. Why do they run this line on Syria? Why? Obviously what they’re saying is not true and, at the very least, is not balanced. Why did the Washington Post or the Guardian never report what the Syrian Government was saying?

SUSAN DIRGHAM: It gets back to money?

JEREMY SALT: I don’t know. I don’t know. I seriously don’t know why. And with a paper like the Guardian I have to ask questions. Well, the Guardian can’t make all that much money. Maybe it does. I don’t think so.
SUSAN DIRGHAM: Sponsors?

Mass media as a business

JEREMY SALT: I don’t know. I don’t know what’s going on. I really can’t explain this: why the media does this all the time.
So, when we talk about the media, what we are actually talking about is media as business. Business is money. And, you know, the diversification of ownership of the media. Like in America, for example, a number of very large corporations have media ownership. Like Westinghouse. Westinghouse is one of them, only one of them. Murdoch’s interests go all across the print media into film, into cable television, into fibreoptics – the whole thing. And the media has always worked closely with government because of this give and take. The media wants things from the government. It wants licences. And the media will give things to the government. It will give them [government] favourable publicity. In Australian or in England we know that politicians are very very quick to try to curry favour with the media magnates – with Murdoch, for example. They might fall out, but they do their best to stay on side with him. So the media functions as part of the business sector – fundamentally. And the business sector has close relations with the government. So there are interlocking systems, of which the media is part. I think this partly explains the kind of narrative we see about Syria and what we saw about Iraq. It’s pumping out a line.

SUSAN DIRGHAM: Also, I was an activist during the Vietnam war – we’ve got some other activists here – and what we spoke of about then was the ‘military industrial complex’. That’s still alive and active. Can we also talk about the ‘media industrial complex’ and are there links?

JEREMY SALT: Are you talking about America?

SUSAN DIRGHAM: Generally, but America in particular, of course.

JEREMY SALT: The media industrial complex. Can you just explain what you mean by that?

SUSAN DIRGHAM: It means that people don’t really have a voice; that you do have – as you are suggesting – companies that have this power that can determine what the narrative is. For example, on Syria. So you don’t get that balance. Journalists don’t have the freedom to present a balanced picture.

The ‘free’ press.

JEREMY SALT: They don’t. If you work for a big news corporation, you cannot write what you want. It might be just coincidental that your views are the same as Rupert Murdoch’s. That’s really nice. But if they are not the same as Rupert Murdoch’s, you’ve got to make sure that, pretty much, they are. Otherwise you’re not going to have much of a future. You can’t just wander off and write whatever you want. But the thing about the media is – a lot of people take these phrases for granted – like ‘free press’ – so forth and so on. Well, free for whom? Who has the right to speak? Who has the right to write in the media?

It’s very carefully controlled. It does vary a little bit from news organisation to news organisation, but basically it’s controlled. Some people have access. A lot of people don’t have access. I mean a lot of people in Australia who don’t have any access at all to the mainstream media at all. They’re very well informed, they’re very intelligent, they’re articulate, they’re experienced, they know their area, but they’re not going to be given any space in the mainstream media. Because they’re going to say things that the mainstream media – for whatever reason – doesn’t want people to hear.

SUSAN DIRGHAM: If you worked in the mainstream media today, and you wanted …

JEREMY SALT: Well I couldn’t –

SUSAN DIRGHAM: …and you’re a person of courage, what would you do …

JEREMY SALT: Well, I wouldn’t last. I wouldn’t last. I couldn’t last.

SUSAN DIRGHAM: Even moving to another area? You wouldn’t be an ABC Middle East correspondent if you …

JEREMY SALT: I don’t … no, I wouldn’t …

SUSAN DIRGHAM: …integrity and courage…

JEREMY SALT: No, I wouldn’t because I would go to Syria and I’d want to go to the Syrian Government and get their take on what’s going on.

SUSAN DIRGHAM: Or the people…

JEREMY SALT: …and I’d want to go to the West Bank …

SUSAN DIRGHAM: Or the women. Don’t forget the women.

JEREMY SALT: Alright, okay, I’d talk to the women.

SUSAN DIRGHAM: The women of Syria…

JEREMY SALT: If I were in Palestine, I’d go to the West Bank and I’d talk to people there and I’d do it in a much more forceful way than the ABC would allow. So, therefore, someone like me – well, let’s not talk about me – someone like me is not going to be given the freedom to speak. Right? You’re sidelined. I know lots of people here, in this country, who are very well informed about the Middle East, about Syria, about Iran. They’ve no place in the media – and they’ve tried, but they’re shut out. And so the space is given to Greg Sheridan, for example, in The Australian, and… who was it, who wrote… Derryn Hinch!

SUSAN DIRGHAM: (Laughs softly).

JEREMY SALT: In the Age, wrote this silly piece about…

SUSAN DIRGHAM: Comparing Assad to …

JEREMY SALT: Yes!

SUSAN DIRGHAM: To Pol Pot!

JEREMY SALT: Yes! So what is a quality, so-called ‘quality’ newspaper doing with Derryn Hinch on the Middle East? When there are many, many people in this country well-qualified to talk sensibly, and they use Derryn Hinch.

SUSAN DIRGHAM: I think Derryn Hinch was probably using his heart and he was going to the shallow analysis…

JEREMY SALT: But

SUSAN DIRGHAM: … of the mainstream media, and he just thought, well, Assad’s the criminal; he’s a brutal criminal; he’s killing his own people; he must be like Pol Pot.

JEREMY SALT: But why use Derryn Hinch for this anyway?

SUSAN DIRGHAM: Yeah.

JEREMY SALT: He can write a letter to the editor…

SUSAN DIRGHAM: Yeah.

JEREMY SALT: ‘Derryn Hinch of Armadale, Worried Reader’, whatever he wants to describe himself.

SUSAN DIRGHAM: Why don’t they ask you and me to write about it?

JEREMY SALT: Well, not me. Forget me. Just leave me out of it. There are a lot of other people who can write intelligently about it. Why do they go to Derryn Hinch? And the whole thing about the media is that the news is an artefact …
SUSAN DIRGHAM: (Joking) We’ll have a fight soon.

JEREMY SALT: No, we’re not going to fight. News is an artefact. It’s something that people who read newspapers might not necessarily be fully aware of. I mean they do generally or not. The newspaper is one dimensional. There it is, but there is a whole kind of, like, hive of activity befor that. So the raw news is shaped by the reporter, by the editors. It’s shaped according to where it’s placed in the paper. It’s shaped according to the headlines. It’s honed and whittled and refined. Until it gets to you. And you’ve got to think of the mass of information that comes into the media every single day, whether you’re talking about newspapers or television, immense mass. And what you are seeing is a tiny fraction. So ‘news’ should be put in quotes. News is something that the newspaper or television station wants you to know; chooses for you. It’s not unmediated. And then, the other part of that, of course, is the politics of it and the way that things are reported. For example, in the case of Syria, why Syria is reported in such a negative fashion and such an unbalanced fashion. Why have none of these news organisations seen as their business to try to be fair? This is what the so-called rebels are saying – let’s hear what the Syrian Government and people who support the government have to say and what the families of the soldiers have to say. We’ve seen nothing of that. Nothing whatsoever. So, it’s completely lopsided.

And, we go back to that basic question: Why do they [the mainstream media] do it? What’s in it for them? What’s in it for them? And there’s something grey here that I can’t really put my hands on.

SUSAN DIRGHAM: At the moment, and the people in this room know this, because I’m asking them to help me, I’m working on a complaint letter to the ABC because they had a program on in December, on Radio National Earshot program, ‘The Drawers of Memory, Ahmed’s story.’ And the protagonist in this program was a ‘freedom fighter’ in Syria; someone who was running round …

JEREMY SALT: Described as a ‘freedom fighter’?

SUSAN DIRGHAM: Well, he says he supports freedom, and his ‘friends’ the insurgents based in Damascus, who support ‘freedom,’ he reckons they will win in the end. And maybe they will; they’ve got so much ‘support’ from Saudi Arabia, from Qatar – Apparently he was a money-runner, with Saudi Arabia and Qatar’s money. But he is presented on the ABC as someone that’s credible. And the victims of these insurgents – ordinary people like us that live in the suburbs of Damascus – are just ignored. But, what I discovered when I did a little bit of research on this story is that this is basically an unofficial ABC policy, to present this side of things. As we’ve been discussing, basically. So you get MediaWatch saying, ‘Assad is a brutal dictator. Assad is a war criminal. Assad has used chemicals against his people …’ So, if Mediawatch says this, what mainstream journalist dares present another narrative, dares present the side of the Syrian people?

JEREMY SALT: Why should we use the word ‘dare’? What is the problem in reporting Syria in a more balanced way? I mean, Australians would like to know for sure. They would like to have a different picture. Why does the media pump out this completely lopsided view? Why are they doing it? What are they frightened of? Why are they buying this narrative in this fashion? This is really what I can’t understand. You know, they’re not being told to do it by the government. The government’s not issuing an edict, ‘Please report this situation like this’. No-one’s doing that. So, exactly, how does it work out like that? That they will just report the situation in this kind of grossly unbalanced fashion.

SUSAN DIRGHAM: People get intimidated. They don’t realise their power. Individuals don’t realise the power and influence they have.

JEREMY SALT: If you were – I imagine that if you were an editor of a mainstream newspaper and you suddenly had a rush of blood to the head and decided to report Syria what you or I would call ‘fairly and objectively’, you probably wouldn’t last. But why? Why would they not allow you to report Syria in a more balanced fashion? This is the mystery that we keep coming back to. Why does the media do this? I mean, no-one’s going to punish them if they report the Syrian war – I would think – in a more balanced fashion. Why do they do it? And this is happening all the time. This freedom fighter: ‘I’m a freedom fighter’, ‘I love freedom.’ Oh, great. Okay. Well, so do I.

SUSAN DIRGHAM: So do the Syrian people.

JEREMY SALT: Congratulations. We all love freedom. Freedom’s a really nice thing.

SUSAN DIRGHAM: But what is freedom? What is free?

JEREMY SALT: It’s a word. That’s what it is. It’s a word: ‘I love freedom’.

SUSAN DIRGHAM: Freedom to live.

JEREMY SALT: Yes. ‘I’m going to kill people, but I love freedom.‘

SUSAN DIRGHAM: ‘And I’m going to kill them for Saudi Arabia, for America.’

JEREMY SALT: And this has just one on and on for the last five years. And it doesn’t stop. And the latest thing we have is this situation in this town of Madaya, north of Damascus. And the media is reporting Assad forces, or Assad loyalists, or Syrian Army – what are they saying – usually the first two – besieged this town. And we have the reports of the civilians starving – and all the rest. I’m quite sure they’re having a terrible time.

Susan Dirgham of AMRIS talks with Middle East and propaganda scholar, Jeremy Salt, about the history of western interventions in the Middle East and in Syria. She asks why the mainstream press don't tell westerners how Syria is secular and has good women's rights; women got the vote there in 1947. This article is summary plus transcript from the video of Part One of Politics and war in Syria: Susan Dirgham interviews Jeremy Salt. Susan Dirham is convener of Australians for Reconciliation in Syria (AMRIS) and Jeremy Salt is a scholar of Media propaganda and the Middle East

Jeremy Salt begins by talking about 19th century history of interventions in the Middle East, then about intervention in Iraq in 1990s. The UN ran this nominally, but really England and United States did. Two UN humanitarians objected to the inhumanity of economic sanctions against Iraq, possibly even mentioned ‘genocide’: they were Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck. [1] To Susan’s question, Dr Salt agrees that UN personnel no longer speak out. On the subject of the 2003 ‘weapons of mass destruction’: The use of no-fly zones to conduct aerial bombardments. [2] Libya. No-fly zone fig leaf. Syria: they wanted to get a UN resolution for a no-fly zone, but Russia and China blocked this with the UN. Next best thing [sic] was to pull down the government of Damascus by using armed gangs – mercenaries. From 2011 until now and still [the west]have not reached their main objective, which is the destruction of the government in Damascus, but they have destroyed a large part of Syria. This is similar to the Sandinista template of mercenaries used in Nicaragua.

SUSAN DIRGHAM: Why do these people choose to fight for/align themselves with western governments when they can see as clearly as you and I can see that these western governments are out to destroy Arab societies?

JEREMY SALT: [Ed: Not exact quotes always; some paraphrase] But we don’t know who these people are. Initially some of them were Syrians, but a lot were from Iraq. Because, in many ways, the war in Syria is the Iraq war exported. The Saudis and other Gulf states have pumped money into Sunni Muslim groups in Western Iraq to destabilise the government in Bagdad, which they didn’t like.

The whole protest movement in Syria was wildly exaggerated [by external war-mongering forces] who were waiting to seize just such an opportunity to make their move against Syria. We’ve seen this happen in Latin America, the Middle East over many, many decades. It happened in Chili, Iran, Ukraine. When the people begin to protest, you come in from behind and you turn those protests to your advantage.

So, for the question of why local people would support western-aligned interventions, the level of true support is unknown. This is not a civil war. This is a campaign against Syria orchestrated by outside governments, who want to destroy Syria and are using a protest movement. Infiltrating it.

You might remember the first week of that protest movement in Dada, in Southern Syria. We are told that the Syrian military started firing into peaceful protesters.

What the media didn’t report was the number of civilians and police who were killed by armed men in that week. And we were told by the same media that there were snipers on rooftops firing into peaceful demonstrators. They said, ‘government snipers’. Almost certainly, they were not. They were provocateurs, stirring as much trouble up as they could. Since those days, we know full well, that the number of foreigners coming to Syria has turned into a flood.

SUSAN DIRGHAM: Jeremy, the thing you mention about snipers; I was in Damascus in April 2011, just one month after the start of the crisis, and I met a young man who had been to an anti-government rally just that morning and he said that two people were killed at the rally and others were shot. There were police at the rally with arms, but they did not draw their weapons. So it was just a mystery, who killed these people and Syrians know this.

Taksim Square Massacre template

JEREMY SALT: Once again, this is part of a template. This happens in many situations like this. Where you send your undercover agents into a situation. They open fire from a rooftop or from round a corner. No-one really knows who does it, but that’s the opportunity that the enemy wants, and its media wants, to portray the government as being brutal and oppressive – to killing its own people.

So, what we are seeing in Syria is just another repeat of what we have seen in many, many other countries. We had this in Istanbul, in the Taksim Square Massacre. There was a Mayday march and people started firing into the crowd. They were obviously agent-provocateurs. Turning the whole demonstration – disrupting it – turning it into a panic-stricken kind of riot. 'Cause people didn’t know what was going on.

SUSAN DIRGHAM: One thing that people don’t know is that there was the CIA-orchestrated coup in Syria in 1949. The first CIA coup ever. The CIA had just been recently set up. This was in Syria. So Syrian people know their history, know their enemies –

JEREMY SALT: The whole thing is people in the Arab world generally have a very strong grasp of history and, you know, the people who suffer, who are the victims, remember the history. The people who do bad things to them; they want to move on, want to forget it.

So, of course there is a [?known] history. And it’s not just 1949; This goes back to the end of the first world war.

Syria has been ‘under siege’, effectively, all that time, up unto the present day. So, 1949, yes, that coup, Husni al-Zaim was put there by the CIA, and then he’s followed by a second man, Sami al-Hinnawi, then Adib Shishakli. And Shishakli, whether he was actually put-up to it by the Americans, is not clear. He probably wasn’t, but what he did, the Americans liked. Because, one thing that he didn’t like was a proposal to unite the fertile crescent. To bring Syria and Iraq together.

Iraq was under the domination of the British, so, if that had happened, it would have held a wonderful advantage for Britain – and the Americans didn’t want that. Because, beneath all of these things that we are talking about, all through the 20th century, up to the present day, there were these subterranean tensions between these outside powers.

Britain and France were wartime allies in 1914. Once the war was over, they were rivals.

And the British did what they could to limit French gains. And why did the French leave Syria in 1946? Because the British put pressure on them. Made them leave, because France was, relatively speaking, in a weak position. Britain was weak, but not as weak.

And we see, in the 1950s, Britain and the United States, this same sort of subterranean tension playing up because Britain’s fading as an imperial power, America’s moving into the region and doesn’t want the British to regain lost ground. So this is all part of the picture.

Secular society and women’s rights in Syria: if people knew the truth…

SUSAN DIRGHAM: Another bit of history going back to those times, is that women were given the vote in Syria in 1949. And what disturbs me greatly is we [Australians/westerners] don’t really know what Syrian society is like. It’s hidden behind that ‘brutal dictator’. So our media is presenting a ‘brutal dictator’ versus ‘rebels’ and, behind that ‘brutal dictator’, you’ve got the army - a secular army - and you’ve got a secular society, and you’ve got women, who have extraordinary freedoms. Do you think, if we knew …?

Western governments and media do not want us to know the truth

JEREMY SALT: Yes, of course, if we knew; if people went there. I mean Syria had a quite reasonable tourist industry before this war broke out. We all know that Syria’s a fantastic country. A wonderful place, right. So, a number of people who go there would see that for themselves, but what the others have to rely on is what the media tell them. And the media doesn’t tell them the things that you’re saying. And the media wasn’t saying these things about many, many other countries.

The media will pick up a story, a narrative, which fits in with what they and the government wants. As it did over Iraq, as it has done with many other situations. So Syria becomes a target to be destroyed, therefore it’s not in the interests of the government or much of the media to talk about positive things about Syria. Not to talk about a secular society, freedom for women, and all the rest – because people would say then, ‘Well, why are we taking Syria? Why are we going for Syria?

And so the narrative over Syria has been shocking from the beginning. There has been no balanced reporting whatsoever about Syria. I mean, one or two reporters file reasonable reports from time to time, but 95, 97% of the coverage has not conformed in any way to the standards of proper journalism. It’s been completely biased. You haven’t seen the other side.

If you are a journalist the primary responsibility is what they call ‘balance’. You’re never going to achieve perfect balance, but in a situation like this, even if you want to report what the rebels are saying and doing - even if you and I don’t think they really are rebels – let them have their say. Let people think about it. But you have to report what the others are saying. You have to go to the Syrian government.

You’ve got to go to the victims of the rebels. They are very good – the media – for the last five years has talked about the ‘victims of the Syrian army’ – as they say it – but they haven’t paid any attention at all to the victims of these armed groups. And if they did, then naturally, people would get a very different idea.

If they [journalists] talked to the government and were able to see what happens in families who’ve lost young men. I mean, how many young men have died in Syria fighting these [‘rebel’] groups? Sixty thousand? Something like that. Plus all the others – tens of thousands – wounded.

If that were shown, the whole narrative would be disrupted. But it can’t be shown. It can’t be shown. You cannot really show the victims of war. This is common in all wars. They don’t like to show the gruesome detail.

We saw the other day how Obama was wiping away tears for children who had been shot dead in America. Well, this is the same Obama who has been ordering missile strikes in Yemen that have killed children.

Now if you show the victims of those missile strikes in Yemen – actually show the bodies – well then, the American public would do a double-take: ‘What on earth are we doing? Dead children! We’re killing children in Yemen.’

No, you don’t see those photographs. And the same in Syria. You don’t see the gory detail of what the armed groups are doing. It will be played down. But when the government does something, or the military does something, it’s magnified to the ultimate degree.

So there can’t be any trust in the mainstream media now, there cannot be. After the absolute pinnacle of propaganda about Iraq; Syria is even worse.

NOTES

[1] Denis Halliday - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Denis J. Halliday (born c.1941) was the United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq from 1 September 1997 until 1998. He is Irish and holds an M.A. in ..."

Economic Sanctions "Hit Wrong Target," Says Former U.N. ...
" “Economic Sanctions “Hit Wrong Target,” Says Former U.N. Humanitarian ... Iraq,” warned former United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator Hans von Sponeck, .... Commonwealth Club of California held at the swank Westin St. Francis Hotel in .."

[2] Use of ‘No Fly Zones’: The way this works is to accuse a government of bombing its own citizens then for external powers to declare a ‘no fly zone’, which is somehow interpreted to mean that those powers can enter the zone and bomb government planes which may actually be trying to defend themselves against armed takeovers that imperil citizens. So this stops a country from defending itself militarily and enables outside powers to take over, beginning with the airspace.

This article has since been republished on the Syrian Free Press Network.

Mr Macilwain said, "Such action will do little to ‘degrade and destroy’ the terrorist group, whose control over territory has only continued to increase despite a year of US Coalition airstrikes. Furthermore there have been significant civilian casualties and damage as a result of those airstrikes, leading to further refugee flows."

"While Australian involvement in the campaign in Syria will do little to change this situation, culpability for ‘collateral damage’ sustained within Syrian sovereign territory could bring us before the ICC," added Mr Macilwain.

"Rather than looking for an alternative pretext that might be legal, such as the ‘responsibility to protect’ Iraqis, AMRIS proposes a clear alternative - cooperation with the Syrian Army in its fight against IS and other terrorist groups."

"AMRIS also considers that if the Australian government is genuine in its desire and commitment to defeat IS, Al Qaeda and allied terrorist groups in Syria, and seeks to restore peace and security such that refugees can return, then it must be prepared to work in cooperation with the Syrian government and security forces. Such a commitment also entails the recognition of that government as legally constituted and representing the majority of the Syrian population, as mandated in the election of June 2014."_{#fn1" id="txt1"> 1} 

Mr Macilwain further stated, "In the absence of such cooperation with the Syrian authorities, Australian military intervention in the Syrian conflict will be neither legal nor moral, regardless of the stated target and pretext. The consequences of such an illegal intervention, which under international law constitutes the ‘supreme crime’ of launching a war of aggression, would be both inconceivable and uncontrollable."

"AMRIS demands that there must be a full disclosure of the objectives, conditions and limitations of this intervention, subject to a parliamentary debate and public scrutiny before this apparent decision to take us to war is finalised."

http://australiansforreconciliationinsyria.org/about/

David Macilwain.

Footnote[s]

#fn1" id="fn1">1. #txt1">↑  At the Presidential election of 4 June 2014, 10,319,723 Syrians, or 88.7% of the 73.42% of eligible Syrian voters who voted, voted for President Bashar al-Assad in spite of the obstruction of expatriate voters by some countries, including Australia and France.

The fair conduct of those elections was attested to by five international observers at a press conference held at the headquarters of the United Nations on 19 June 2014. See Syria's press conference the United Nations doesn't want you to see (21/6/15) with an embedded 53 minute YouTube broadcast. This article was previously published on Global Research.

I don't know of one of the leaders any one of the formal democracies opposed to Syria – the United States, Great Britain, Canada, France, Turkey, Israel, Australia, ... let alone the dictatorships of Saudi Arabia and Qatar – who can claim to have even close to President al-Assad's popular endoresement.

At the conference not one of the 'reporters' who, before and since, have peddled the narrative that Bashar al-Assad is a corrupt, brutal dictator, attempted to challenge their testimony.

Below is a quote from Obama before he became president, counselling a completely opposite foreign policy to the warmongering one he now heads.[1] He calls for cooperation with Russia, a vigorous enforcement of nuclear non-proliferation, shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, pressure on the Saudis and Egyptians to stop oppressing their own people, and for an energy policy alternative to Big Oil's. Addressing the Bush government of eight years ago, he recognised the inflammatory and unfair process set in train by the United States in the Middle East. Yet now he pursues the same policy even more aggressively and dishonestly than Bush. He effectively heads a global coalition of war-criminals. Australia is a stooge in that coalition and so is the ABC, CBC, BBC, European Press, notably French mainstream press, and the Murdoch and Fairfax Press in Australia. Currently their greatest war-crime is to fail to reveal that President Bashar al-Assad is not an 'unelected dictator' but won overwhelmingly in a fair election in 2014 and currently offers protection to his people, but the Western allies and their corrupt Middle Eastern stooges - Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey - are driving the exodus from the Middle East by sponsoring terror-militia.

Why are there so many displaced people? Perhaps somebody wanted a fight

Speech by Sen. Barack Obama delivered in Chicago on Oct. 2, 2002:

"So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with bin Laden and al-Qaida, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and
a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush?"

"Let's fight to make sure that the U.N. inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush?"

"Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil." (Excerpt from speech delivered by Sen. Barack Obama delivered in Chicago on Oct. 2, 2002.)

NOTES

[1] http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x33800 This speech is cited in many places and recently discussed in a new book, Lloyd Gardner, Killing Machine: The American Presidency in the Age of Drone Warfare.

Ed. Title, "Dangerous bias in terror wars" added by candobetter.net editor to help readers identify content. This article contains a complaint about ABC reporting bias which editors at candobetter.net believe has immediate grave consequences with respect to war crimes. Candobetter.net is publishing it in an attempt to increase the prospects for it to receive adequate and remedial attention from the ABC, which we believe could save many lives and contribute to descale events that threaten to escalate into a third world war. The complaint concerns a Radio National AM program presented by Chris Uhlmann with reporter Matt Brown, entitled, "Mixed Response from Syrian rebels to American-led war on IS."

Program: ABC, Radio National, AM
Date: 18/9/2014
Title: Mixed Response from Syrian rebels to American-led war on IS
Presenter: Chris Uhlmann Reporter: Matt Brown
***********************************************************************************************
24 September 2014
Dear Audience and Consumer Affairs,
The above-mentioned AM program breaches the ABC Code of Practice in regards to Accuracy, Impartiality and Diversity of Perspectives.

INTRODUCTION

The United States with support from Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar, has begun airstrikes on Syria, ostensibly to target IS forces. To enter the airspace of Syria without the authorization of the Syrian government is an illegal act. Also, last week the American Congress voted to train and arm ‘moderate Syrian rebels’. These rebels are fighting both the Islamic State and the Syrian government, and there is reason to believe they see the Syrian government as their principal target. Under international law, it is illegal for countries to fund and supply weapons to insurgents intent on overthrowing the government of a sovereign state.

The Australian government will have enormous pressure on it from the U.S. Administration to support their military actions in Syria. It is, therefore, imperative that Australians are as well-informed as they can possibly be about the war in Syria and the so-called moderate rebels that America and its allies are arming. Decisions which will determine the history of the 21st century are being made.

What is more, the conflict in Syria impacts on communities in Australia and on people’s sense of security and well-being. We can all be disorientated by the mixed messages and the hatred stirred up in biased, imprudent reports and commentaries on the war. It should be the responsibility of the ABC, our national broadcaster, to inform us fully and impartially on Syria and the region. However, its Middle East correspondent, Matt Brown, is not doing this.

ACCURACY and IMPARTIALITY

In his report on AM (18 September 2014) Matt Brown presented a biased portrayal of ‘moderate’ rebels in Syria. He described the rebels as ‘moderate’, as if their being moderate was a fact, not an opinion.

Furthermore, emotive expressions that could elicit sympathy for the rebels were used. These included, concern, hope, congratulated, thankful, and a welcome gesture.

There was no suggestion that these rebels might be opportunists, who happily wear the label ‘moderate’ today as it entitles them to receive military hardware from the U.S. and its allies, but who have aligned with terrorist groups, including ISIL, at times in the conflict when it suited them. Also, in coming days, months and years, there are already signs they will choose Al-Qaeda affiliated groups over the U.S. and their allies.

Unlike Brown, BBC’s Jeremy Bowen expresses serious reservations about ‘moderate’ rebels.

I have met many FSA fighters and they do have moderate views, certainly in comparison with jihadist groups. But the fighters are often religious and see no problem with building up alliances with the jihadists against a common enemy. Fighters also move from one group to another.

Also, it’s been reported that the family of Steven Sotloff, one of the American journalists beheaded by ISIL, accused ‘moderate rebels’ of selling Steven to the extremists.

Does a ‘moderate’ rebel kill differently to an ‘extremist’ rebel?

Ahmad Al-Rahal, a ‘moderate rebel’ introduced in the AM report, declared in an interview in March 2014,

There is no sectarianism in this revolution. Syria only has two sects: that of the regime and that of the revolution.

It is difficult to see how such a crude uncompromising approach to a ‘revolution’ differs from the Khmer Rouge’s, whose ideology was just as black and white and led to the killing fields in Cambodia. It is therefore shocking that Brown reports on Al-Rahal totally uncritically.

Given the lethal qualities of the ‘revolution’ in Syria and its attraction to young Muslim Australians, the ABC has a heavy responsibility to both the general public in Syria and in Australia to ensure ‘rebels’ in Syria, no matter what their name-tag today, are neither glamorized nor sanitized by ABC journalists.

The other ‘moderate’ rebel commander Brown introduces to the AM audience is Jamal Al Maa’arufe (also spelt ‘Ma’ruf’ and ‘Maruf). Currently, Maa’arufe is said to head a coalition of insurgent groups called the Syrian Revolutionaries’ Front. Dr As'ad AbuKhalil, a professor of political science at California State University has written the following about Jamal Maa’arufe on his blog, Angry Arab:
A Syrian leader of rebel thugs, Jamal Ma`ruf, having been groomed by Saudi intelligence, announces in the media that he is now ready and willing to fight ISIS. Let me translate: he has just received a large supply of weapons and cash from American and Saudi intelligence. Let the thuggery begin.

DIVERSITY of PERSPECTIVES

Although rebels control quite a large area in Syria, the majority of Syrians still choose to live in government controlled cities and towns. These people include up to two million Syrian Christians as well as Muslims of all sects who do not support a militarized opposition or an Islamised political system, similar to Saudi Arabia’s or Iran’s. Yet, their voices are not heard in this AM report. It is as if they do not exist, yet they are people Australians would feel great empathy for if only we knew their stories and views.

Ironically perhaps, James Foley, the American journalist whose beheading became part of the pretext for U.S. military strikes on Syria, did diligently seek the views of civilians in Aleppo who were critical of the Free Syrian Army, supposedly moderate rebels. This may have cost him his life. In an October 2012 article titled Syria: Rebels losing support among civilians in Aleppo, Foley wrote,

The rebels in Aleppo are predominantly from the countryside, further alienating them from the urban crowd that once lived here peacefully, in relative economic comfort and with little interference from the authoritarian government of President Bashar al-Assad.
“The terrorism here in Syria is spreading, and the government has to do something about it,” said Mohamed Kabal, a 21-year-old university student.

Foley also presented the perspective of a disillusioned rebel.

He said he's seen civilians executed after rebels recklessly accuse them of being mercenaries for the regime.
“I saw one beaten to death,” he said. “The FSA didn’t check their facts, and now he’s dead. I know the man. He was 46. He has five children.”

Unlike some media outlets, such as the BBC, Channel 4, and the Telegraph, the ABC has not sent a reporter into government controlled cities to seek a diversity of perspectives in regards to the war. The ABC has maintained it hasn’t been able to get a visa for a reporter. But this is no excuse for the lack of balance in Matt Brown’s report. In June, tens of thousands of Syrians in Lebanon voted in the Syrian presidential election. Brown could travel to Beirut to seek out their views.

TRUTHS vs INACCURATE & BIASED REPORTING

In 2011, on an ABC community webpage, there was an account of the violence and terror then being committed by armed gangs across Syria. However, despite challenges, the mainstream narrative on the crisis in Syria has been consistent: a minority sect is oppressing the Sunni majority and a brutal dictator is killing his own people. Matt Brown promotes it in this AM report, as do print journalists, NGOs, human rights organizations, even UN bodies. When prominent Malaysian peace activist, Dr Chandra Muzaffar, writes on what might attract young Muslim men the rebel cause in Syria, we in Australia should pay heed. He is a ‘moderate’ Muslim exploring truths.
Unfortunately, through repetition, the narrative has become an embedded ‘truth’. Hence, although a well-regarded M.I.T. professor, a doctor in pharmacology, a US intelligence expert, a veteran investigative journalist; have all challenged the claim that Assad used chemical weapons against his people in August 2013, ABC presenter Waleed Aly can still insist Assad did, without thinking it necessary to substantiate the accusation.

So Matt Brown’s recent AM report continued the tradition of this narrative. It began with a discussion of the Sunni IS forces and ended with damnation of the ‘torture chambers’ of Bashar Al-Assad, who, as Brown says, is the ‘main target’ of ‘moderate’ rebels. (NB: Alternative sources question the ‘Caesar’ claims of ‘torture chambers’, but a mainstream journalist is highly unlikely to be instructed to probe deeply once a convenient ‘truth’ is embedded.)

On AM, rebel claims were presented without challenge by Brown; thus, they easily become ‘truths’. So Jamal Al Maa’arufe speaks about the fight against the “unjust Bashar’s illegitimate state”. Belief that the Syrian state is illegitimate may be what prompts rebels to brutally murder state employees, including bakers, post office workers, doctors and teachers. But how can a state that has been represented in the U.N. since its inception be ‘illegitimate’?

Brown says a government airstrike ‘reportedly’ killed Jamal Al Maa’arufe’s wife and daughter. Brown acknowledges it is a claim. However, apart from this AM report, a tweet and a Facebook entry, It is very hard to find support on the internet for it. An article in SYRIA: direct, reports on the airstrike, but it claims Maa’arufe’s deputy was killed; there is no mention of family members. Already Brown presents a sympathetic portrait of rebel leader Al Maa’arufe. Suggesting that he has lost his wife and daughter in a government airstrike further reinforces that portrayal. That may be the purpose of it. as to repeat what seems to be merely a little chatter on the internet seems irresponsible journalism, especially when the stakes are so high when there is misinformation presented on Syria, high for the people of Syria and the region, and high for Australians, as we are now learning.

CONCLUSION

Unchallenged rebel slogans, misinformation and distortions can only further entice young Muslim Australians to Syria to fight the ‘Alawi dictatorship of Bashar Al Assad’, as James Carleton described it on RN Breakfast (22/9/14) in clear contradiction of the true demographics, which are that the Syrian government, army, and business elite are dominated by Sunni Muslims. Young Australian Muslims who aspire to becoming martyrs in Syria or Australia can inadvertently become the victims of lies.

Syria is a conflict we all contribute to if we do not demand the highest standards of reporting. Not only do we risk being victims of our own naivety and gullibility, but by ignoring the voices and suffering of millions of Syrians - people like us - we compromise our basic beliefs and values, and we risk being complicit in heinous crimes.

Regards,

Ms Susan Dirgham

National Coordinator of "Australians for Mussalaha (Reconciliation) in Syria"

Image: Syrian TV interviewer with Dr Kinda Shammat, Minister in Syrian government (Screen shot taken from Syrian TV)

Image: Screen shot of image of a tweet showing ‘moderate’ rebel Jamal Ma’ruf, presented in Matt Brown’s report.