Responsibility to Protect? Amerikaanse oorlogsmisdaden in Vietnam.
De Volkskrant opent vandaag op de voorpagina met deze bewering:
Amerika presenteert bewijzen en bereidt een beperkte aanval voor.
Hoe weet de Volkskrant-redactie zo zeker dat het Witte Huis over 'bewijzen' beschikt? Dat weet de Volkskrant niet, maar dat is voor de redactie ook niet belangrijk. De macht bepaalt wat waar is en niet waar, de de journalisten van de mainstream gehoorzamen de macht net zoals in de Middeleeuwen de geestelijkheid volgde wat de Paus in Rome bepaalde. Zonder dit voetvolk zou de macht niet kunnen heersen. Met betrekking tot het begrip 'objectiviteit' wees Noam Chomsky op het volgende opmerkelijke feit toen hij over de verlichtingsfilosoof David Hume schreef:
In considering the First Principles of Government, Hume found "nothing more surprising" than "to see the easiness with which the many are governed by the few; and to observe the implicit submission with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers. When we enquire by what means this wonder is brought about, we shall find, that as Force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. 'Tis therefore, on opinion only that government is founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and most military governments, as well as to the most free and most popular."
Hume was an astute observer, and his paradox of government is much to the point. His insight explains why elites are so dedicated to indoctrination and thought control, a major and largely neglected theme of modern history. "The public must be put in its place," Walter Lippmann wrote, so that we may "live free of the trampling and the roar of a bewildered herd," whose "function" is to be "interested spectators of action," not participants. And if the state lacks the force to coerce and the voice of the people can be heard, it is necessary to ensure that that voice says the right thing, as respected intellectuals have been advising for many years.
Dat deze Volkskrant eerder blind aannam dat Washington na het zogenaamde 'Tonkin-Incident' het recht had om Noord Vietnamese steden en Cambodja plat te bombarderen, evenals naderhand Irak omdat Saddam over massa vernietigingswapens zou beschikken, heeft er niet toe geleid dat de krant zich nu neutraler en voorzichtiger opstelt. Integendeel: 'Amerika presenteert bewijzen.'
In 1922 stelde de meest vooraanstaande publicist van de VS in de twintigste eeuw, Walter Lippmann, in zijn standaardwerk Public Opinion dat
public opinions must be organized for the press if they are to be sound, not by the press... Without some form of censorschip, propaganda in the strict sense of the word is impossible. In order to conduct propaganda there must be some barrier between the public and the event. Access to the real environment must be limited, before anyone can create a pseudo-environment that he thinks is wise or desirable... Though it is itself an irrational force the power of public opinion might be placed at the disposal of those who stood for workable law against brute assertion.
De Amerikaanse hoogleraar Stuart Ewen, gespecialiseerd in Media Studies schrijft in zijn boek PR! A Social History of Spin:
Throughout the pages of Public Opinion, Lippmann had asserted that human beings were, for the most part, inherently incapable of responding rationally to their world... For Lippmann, it was not so much people's incapacity to deliberate on issues rationally that was the problem; it was that the time necessary to pursue rational deliberations would only interfere with the smooth exercise of executive power... For Lippmann, the appeal of symbols was that they provided a device for short-circuiting the inconvenience posed by critical reason and public discussion. To Lippmann, symbols were powerful instruments for forging mental agreement among people who -- if engaged in critical dialogue -- would probably disagree. 'When political parties or newspapers declare for Americanism, Progressivism, Law and Order, Justice, Humanity,' he explained, they expect to merge 'conflicting factions which would surely divide if, instead of these symbols, they were invited to discuss a specific program.'
Als adviseur van talloze Amerikaanse presidenten en de Amerikaanse aristocratie richtte Lippmann zich niet tot de bevolking, die hij wantrouwde, maar tot de elite die de bevolking in toom moest houden. Professor Ewen:
Lippmann added that serious public discussion of issues would only yield a 'vague and confusing medley,' a discord that would make executive decision making difficult. 'Action cannot be taken until these opinions have been factored down, canalized, compressed and made uniform.' [...] The symbol, he wrote, 'is like a strategic railroad center where many roads converge regardless of their ultimate origin or their ultimate destination.' Because of this, 'when a coalition around the symbol has been effected, feeling flows toward conformity under the symbol rather than toward critical scrutiny of the measures under consideration.' In its adamant argument that human beings are essentially irrational, social psychology had provided Lippmann -- and many others -- with a handy rationale for a small, intellectual elite to rule over society. Yet a close reading of Lippmann's argument suggests that he was concerned less with the irrational core of human behavior than he was with the problem of making rule by elites, in a democratic age, less difficult. Educated by the lessons of the image culture taking shape around him, Lippmann saw the strategic employment of media images as the secret to modern power; the means by which leaders and special interests might cloak themselves in the 'fiction' that they stand as delegates of the common good.
Met de komst van de massamaatschappij, de massaproductie en massaconsumptie werd de beheersing van de massa een steeds grotere prioriteit voor de machthebbers, een probleem waar zowel de nationaal-socialisten als de communisten en de zogeheten democraten zich uiterst bewust van waren. Hoe houdt men een massa in bedwang? de Amerikaanse denker Noam Chomsky wees op het volgende opvallende feit toen hij over de Verlichtingsfilosoof David Hume schreef:
In considering his First Principles of Government, he expressed his puzzlement over 'the easiness with which the many are governed by the few' and 'the implicit submission with which the men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers.' 'When we enquire by what means this wonder is brought about,' Hume concluded, 'we shall find, that as Force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. It is therefore, on opinion only that government is founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and most military governments, as well as to the most free and most popular.'
Vandaar het doorslaggevende belang van de elite om te kunnen beschikken over 'betrouwbare' woordvoerders, zoals journalisten en politici die een voor de aristocratie gunstig beeld van de wereld scheppen. Stuart Ewen over Walter Lippmann:
The most compelling attribute of symbols, he asserted, was the capacity to magnify emotion while undermining critical thought, to emphasize sensations while subverting ideas. 'In the symbol,' he rhapsodized, 'emotion is discharged at a common target and the idiosyncrasy of real ideas is blotted out.' [...] This general understanding infused Lippmann's formula for leadership [...] 'The process, therefore, by which general opinions are brought to cooperation consists of an intensification of feeling and a degradation of significance.' Before a mass of general opinions can eventuate in executive action, the choice is narrowed down to a few alternatives. The victorious alternative is executed not by a mass but by individuals in control of its energy.
Lippmann's mens- en wereldbeeld wijkt in dit opzicht niet fundamenteel af van die van Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf wanneer de nazileider met betrekking tot propaganda schrijft dat
The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands . . . [Propaganda] must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect . . . The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses . . . [Propaganda] does not have multiple shadings; it has a positive and a negative; love or hate, right or wrong, truth or lie, never half this way and half that way . . . But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. . . . The purpose of propaganda is not to provide interesting distraction for blasé young gentlemen, but to convince . . . the masses. But the masses are slow moving, and they always require a certain time before they are ready even to notice a thing, and only after the simplest ideas are repeated thousands of times will the masses finally remember them.
Lippmann benadrukte dat bij de verspreiding van de 'juiste' denkbeelden
public opinions must be organized for the press if they are to be sound, not by the press... Without some form of censorschip, propaganda in the strict sense of the word is impossible. In order to conduct propaganda there must be some barrier between the public and the event. Access to the real environment must be limited, before anyone can create a pseudo-environment that he thinks is wise or desirable.
Alleen de machthebbers mochten dus de grenzen van de werkelijkheid bepalen, en journalisten dienden die grenzen keurig over te nemen en moesten als opiniemakers erop toezien dat de werkelijkheid in de gewenste vorm zou worden gepresenteerd. De massa en de pers zouden niet in staat zijn om voor zichzelf te denken en om visies te ontwikkelen die de machtigen machtig hielden. In dat proces waren volgens Lippmann beelden van eminent belang omdat 'pictures have always been the surest way of conveying an idea, and next in order, words that call up pictures in memory.' De commerciele massamedia waren het perfecte medium om complexe gedachten terug te brengen tot ééndimensionale beelden die de consument dwingen partij te kiezen voor de gevestigde orde. Lippmann hamerde er keer op keer op dat de massa's
have to take sides. We have to be able to take sides. In the recesses of our being we must step out of the audience on to the stage, and wrestle as the hero for the victory of good over evil. We must breathe into the allegory the breath of life.
Het resultaat is een gemanipuleerde schijnwereld die de massa en de massamedia in het gareel houden. Professor Ewen:
Raised in a world that looked toward fact-based journalism as the most efficient lubricant of persuasion, Lippmann turned toward Hollywood, America's 'dream factory,' for inspiration. Never before had an American thinker articulated in such detail the ways that images could be used to sway public consciousness. Appeals to reason were not merely being discarded as futile, they were being consciously undermined to serve the interests of power. It is here, at the turning point where Lippmann unqualifiedly abandoned the idea of meaningful public dialogue, that the dark side of his ruminations on the power of the image was most dramatically revealed.
De Volkskrant is een illustrerend voorbeeld van wat de functie is van de massamedia bij de disciplinering van de bevolking. Andere voorbeelden zijn Henk Hofland, in 1999 uitgeroepen tot Nederlands journalist van de twintigste eeuw, die als nestor van de polder mainstream opiniemakers, in De Groene Amsterdamnmer schreef over 'het vredestichtende Westen' dat door 'populististisch alarmisme' niet meer, zoals vroeger in Vietnam en naderhand in Afghanistan en Irak, nu met een maximum aan geweld in Syrie ongestoord miljoenen slachtoffers kan maken. En laten we niet vergeten Geert Mak te noemen, de bestsellerschrijver, die beweert dat de VS 'decennialang als ordebewaker en politieagent [fungeerde] – om maar te zwijgen van alle hulp die het uitdeelde.'
Humanitair Ingrijpen? Amerikaanse oorlogsmisdaden in Iraq.
To those who think the United States should intervene in Syria,
Remember this is the same United States which;
• is still deeply involved in two failed wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan that have lasted for over a decade without coming to a conclusion.
• is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not over a million Iraqis and Afghans through aerial bombardments, night raids, artillery shelling, ground missions and genocidal sanctions.
• used depleted uranium and white phosphorous munitions in Iraq leading to a sharp increase in cancerous birth defects in areas like Fallujah.
• knowingly aided Saddam Hussein with intelligence while being completely aware that he was using chemical weapons against Iran.
• has systematically tortured and/or overseen the torture of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Bagram prison, Abu Ghraib, and numerous CIA rendition and black sites.
• is engaged in an illegal, vicious and indiscriminate drone war in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia which has murdered numerous women, children and non-combatants with total casualties estimates ranging around 3000-5000.
• bankrolled (and refused to condemn) the Israeli army as they used white phosphorous shells to attack civilians at Al-Quds hospital and a U.N. compound housing refugees in Gaza in 2009.
• continues to offer diplomatic cover for the brutal and expansionist Israeli occupation and provides weapons to the Israeli military as it carries out further crimes against Palestinians.
• actively supported dictator Hosni Mubarak and his torturous military regime with weapons for over three decades.
• is now complicit in the massacres being committed by the very same Egyptian military under the coup government led by General Abdul-Fattah el-Sisi which has murdered over 1000 people in cold blood in the last month.
• remains tightly allied with the monarchies in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain in thesuppression of their populations.
• armed and trained fundamentalists forces, including the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, that eventually gave birth to Al-Qaeda and similar groups.
• backed former Tunisian dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali by sending 12 million in “security assistance” to suppress the popular uprising at the start of the Arab Spring revolutions.
• has left Libya, and consequently Mali, in a state of chaos after a 2011 supposed “humanitarian intervention” to remove Muammar el-Qaddafi.
• pushed the Pakistani military from 2007 -2010 to carry out dreadfully unaccountable operations in SWAT, FATA and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa which led to the death of 1300 civilians and the internal displacement of nearly 4 million Pakistanis.
• is the #1 weapons exporter in the world and does not consider the importing countries’ records on human rights or democracy a relevant factor.
• currently maintains stockpiles of nuclear, chemical and other banned weapons, such as cluster bombs.
• regularly persecutes and incarcerates its own dissenters, war resisters, and whistleblowers.
• does not want you to remember the horrors of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Agent Orange and the Gulf War Syndrome.
The many atrocities committed by the Assad regime since the start of the Syrian revolution are absolutely unacceptable and the stories emerging from the country are completely heartbreaking. And in fairness, the war crimes committed by the many rebel militias operating in Syria, though lesser in number and intensity, are gruesome and also unacceptable. The recent chemical attacks are undoubtedly a very disturbing development. The 100,000 lives lost prior to these attacks were every bit as precious and the suffering of their families is no easier due to the type of weapons which killed their loved ones.
As an outsider, I cannot pretend to know what the answer is to resolving this conflict, providing justice to those who have been harmed, or building a stable and inclusive Syria for all its inhabitants. I am not sure that anyone knows. The Arab and Muslim states and various militias are divided by their specific interests. The large foreign powers all have their own agendas primarily based on competing imperial calculations. Ordinary Syrians’ voices are being drowned out by the violence and more immediate concerns like seeking bread and shelter. (However, it is important to recognize that with all the focus on foreign Islamist fighters in the conflict, Syrians have remained active in the resistance, both armed and non-armed, to the Assad regime. They, of course, also make up the ranks of the government’s forces.)
I lean towards agreeing with Patrick Coburn’s analysis that a first step in ending this nightmarish stalemate would be pressuring all sides involved in the fighting and the major regional and outside powers (who undoubtedly wield influence with the government and rebels) to immediately negotiate a ceasefire. The US has reportedly abandoned any participation in peace proceedings and is finalizing plans for air strikes. But even to those who see some sort of armed intervention as necessary, I would ask you to critically re-question the United States record in the region as a credible force for democracy, as a responsible and moral military and as a suitable partner for peacemaking. With the drumbeats for war building and as US warships are arriving off the Syrian coast, I urge us all to speak out, work together and collectively seek another solution before even more of Syria is destroyed. There are many potential disastrous implications and consequences to increased US involvement in Syria and the region. With the United States hypocritical and self-serving track record, another blunderous intervention will only make things worse.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten