- In Alerts 2016
- Post 03 October 2016
- Last Updated on 04 October 2016
- By Editor
- Hits: 6969
National newspapers were 'unimpressed by Jeremy Corbyn's victory' in the Labour leadership election, Roy Greenslade noted in the Guardian, surprising no-one. Corbyn secured almost 62% of the 506,000 votes cast, up from the 59% share he won in 2015, 'with virtually no press backing whatsoever'.
In reality, of course, Corbyn did not just lack press backing. He won in the face of more than one year of relentless corporate media campaigning to politically, ethically, professionally, psychologically and even sartorially discredit him. That Corbyn survived is impressive. That he won again, increased his vote-share, and took Labour Party membership from 200,000 to more than 500,000, is astonishing.
None of this moves journalists like the BBC's political editor, Laura Kuenssberg, who commented: 'there's been no big new idea or vision this week that Labour can suddenly rally round'.
Polly Toynbee explained: 'I and many Guardian colleagues can't just get behind Corbyn'. Why? 'Because Corbyn and McDonnell, burdened by their history, will never ever earn the trust of enough voters to make any plans happen.'
Toynbee fails to recognise the nature and scale of the problem. In supporting Corbyn, the public is attempting to shape a genuinely democratic choice out of the sham choices of corporate-owned politics. This awesome task begins with the public waking up to the anti-democratic role of the corporate media in defending, of course, corporate-owned politics. So-called 'mainstream media' are primarily conduits for power rather than information; they are political enforcers, not political communicators. To the extent that the public understands this, change is possible.
Supported by non-corporate, web-based media activism, Corbyn has already smoked out these media to an extent that is without precedent. Many people can see that he is a reasonable, compassionate, decent individual generating immense grassroots support. And they can see that all 'mainstream' media oppose him. It could hardly be more obvious that the corporate media speak as a single biased, elitist voice.
The Benghazi Massacre - No Real Evidence
The smearing of Corbyn fits well with the similarly uniform propaganda campaign taking the 'threat' of Iraqi 'WMD' seriously in 2002 and 2003. Then, also, the entire corporate media system assailed the public with a long litany of fraudulent claims. And then there was Libya.
Coming so soon after the incomplete but still damning exposure of the Iraq deception - with the bloodbath still warm - the media's deep conformity and wilful gullibility on the 2011 Libyan war left even jaundiced observers aghast. It was clear that we were faced with a pathological system of propaganda on Perpetual War autopilot.
The pathology has been starkly exposed by a September 9 report into the war from the foreign affairs committee of the House of Commons. As with Iraq, this was no mere common-or-garden disaster; we are again discussing the destruction of an entire country. The report summarised:
'The result was political and economic collapse, inter-militia and inter-tribal warfare, humanitarian and migrant crises, widespread human rights violations, the spread of Gaddafi regime weapons across the region and the growth of ISIL in North Africa.'
The rationale for 'intervention', of course, was the alleged threat of a massacre by Gaddafi's forces in Benghazi. The report commented:
'The evidence base: our assessment
'Despite his rhetoric, the proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence... Gaddafi regime forces targeted male combatants in a civil war and did not indiscriminately attack civilians. More widely, Muammar Gaddafi's 40-year record of appalling human rights abuses did not include large-scale attacks on Libyan civilians.' (Our emphasis)
'Professor Joffé [Visiting Professor at King's College London] told us that
'the rhetoric that was used was quite blood-curdling, but again there were past examples of the way in which Gaddafi would actually behave... The evidence is that he was well aware of the insecurity of parts of the country and of the unlikelihood that he could control them through sheer violence. Therefore, he would have been very careful in the actual response... the fear of the massacre of civilians was vastly overstated.'
Analyst and author Alison Pargeter agreed with Professor Joffé, concluding that there was no 'real evidence at that time that Gaddafi was preparing to launch a massacre against his own civilians'. Related claims, that Gaddafi used African mercenaries, launched air strikes on civilians in Benghazi, and employed Viagra-fuelled mass rape as a weapon of war, were also invented.
These are astonishing comments. But according to the Lexis-Nexis media database, neither Professor Joffé nor Pargeter has been quoted by name in the press, with only the Express and Independent reporting that 'available evidence' had shown Gaddafi had no record of massacres; a different, less damning, point.
As disturbingly, the report noted:
'We have seen no evidence that the UK Government carried out a proper analysis of the nature of the rebellion in Libya... It could not verify the actual threat to civilians posed by the Gaddafi regime....'
In other words, the UK government's relentless insistence on the need to support freedom-loving rebels against a genocidal tyranny were invented 'facts' fixed around policy.
That the war was a crime is hardly in doubt. Lord Richards (Baron Richards of Herstmonceux), chief of the defence staff at the time of the conflict, told the BBC that Cameron asked him 'how long it might take to depose, regime change, get rid of Gaddafi'. British historian Mark Curtis describes the significance:
'Three weeks after Cameron assured parliament in March 2011 that the object of the intervention was not regime change, he signed a joint letter with President Obama and French President Sarkozy committing to "a future without Gaddafi".
'That these were policies were illegal is confirmed by Cameron himself. He told Parliament on 21 March 2011 that the UN resolution "explicitly does not provide legal authority for action to bring about Gaddafi's removal from power by military means".'
Cameron, then, like Blair, is a war criminal.
The 'Moral Glow' From 'A Triumphant End'
The foreign affairs committee's report is awesomely embarrassing for the disciplined murmuration of corporate journalists who promoted war.
At a crucial time in February and March 2011, the Guardian published a long list of news reports boosting government propaganda and opinion pieces advocating 'intervention' on the basis of the West's supposed 'responsibility to protect', or 'R2P'. Guardian columnist, later comment editor (2014-2016), Jonathan Freedland, wrote an article titled: 'Though the risks are very real, the case for intervention remains strong.'
Brian Whitaker, the Guardian's former Middle East editor, wrote: 'the scale and nature of the Gaddafi regime's actions have impelled the UN's "responsibility to protect".'
Menzies Campbell, former leader of the Liberal Democrats, and Philippe Sands, professor of law at University College London, wrote in the Guardian: 'International law does not require the world to stand by and do nothing as civilians are massacred on the orders of Colonel Gaddafi...'
An Observer leader agreed: 'The west can't let Gaddafi destroy his people.' And thus: 'this particular tyranny will not be allowed to stand'.
No doubt with tongue firmly in Wodehousian cheek, as usual, Boris Johnson wrote in the Telegraph:
'The cause is noble and right, and we are surely bound by our common humanity to help the people of Benghazi.'
'If Colonel Gaddafi is permitted to murder hundreds or thousands of his citizens from the air, and we stand by and let it happen, then our inaction will return to haunt us... We have a side here, let's be on it.' (Aaronovitch, 'Go for a no-fly zone or regret it,' The Times, February 24, 2011)
Later, a Guardian leader quietly celebrated:
'But it can now reasonably be said that in narrow military terms it worked, and that politically there was some retrospective justification for its advocates as the crowds poured into the streets of Tripoli to welcome the rebel convoys earlier this week.'
Simon Tisdall commented in the same newspaper: 'The risky western intervention had worked. And Libya was liberated at last.'
An Observer editorial declared: 'An honourable intervention. A hopeful future.'
The BBC's Nick Robinson observed that Downing Street 'will see this, I'm sure, as a triumphant end'. (BBC, News at Six, October 20, 2011) Robinson appeared to channel Churchill:
'Libya was David Cameron's first war. Col. Gaddafi his first foe. Today, his first real taste of military victory.'
The BBC's chief political correspondent, Norman Smith, declared that Cameron 'must surely feel vindicated'. (BBC News online, October 21, 2011) In Washington, the BBC's Ian Pannell surmised that Obama 'is feeling that his foreign policy strategy has been vindicated - that his critics have been proven wrong'. (BBC News online, October 21, 2011)
The BBC's John Humphrys asked: 'What apart from a sort of moral glow... have we got out of it?' (BBC Radio 4 Today, October 21, 2011)
Andrew Grice, political editor of the Independent, declared that Cameron had 'proved the doubters wrong.' Bitterly ironic then, even more so now, Grice added: 'By calling Libya right, Mr Cameron invites a neat contrast with Tony Blair.'
An editorial in the Telegraph argued that Gaddafi's death 'vindicates the swift action of David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy in halting the attack on Benghazi'. Telegraph columnist Matthew d'Ancona (now writing for the Guardian) agreed: 'It is surely a matter for quiet national pride that an Arab Srebrenica was prevented by a coalition in which Britain played an important part...'
An Independent leader observed:
'Concern was real enough that a Srebrenica-style massacre could unfold in Benghazi, and the UK Government was right to insist that we would not allow this.'
The Times of course joined the corporate herd in affirming that without 'intervention', there 'would have been a massacre in Benghazi on the scale of Srebrenica'. (Leading article, 'Death of a dictator,' The Times, October 21, 2011)
But even voices to the left of the 'mainstream' got Libya badly wrong. Most cringe-makingly, Professor Juan Cole declared:
'The Libya intervention is legal and was necessary to prevent further massacres... If NATO needs me, I'm there.'
Robert Fisk commented in the Independent that, had 'Messrs Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama stopped short after they saved Benghazi', disaster could have been avoided.
Ironically, in an article ostensibly challenging the warmongers' hysterical claims, Mehdi Hasan wrote in the New Statesman:
'The innocent people of Benghazi deserve protection from Gaddafi's murderous wrath.'
Even Noam Chomsky observed:
'The no-fly zone prevented a likely massacre...' (Chomsky, 'Making the Future: Occupations, Interventions, Empire and Resistance,' Hamish Hamilton e-book, 2012, p.372)
To his credit, then Guardian columnist Seumas Milne (now Corbyn's director of communications and strategy) was more sceptical. He wrote in October 2011:
'But there is in fact no evidence – including from other rebel-held towns Gaddafi re-captured – to suggest he had either the capability or even the intention to carry out such an atrocity against an armed city of 700,000.'
John Pilger repeatedly rubbished the entire case for war, including the claim that Gaddafi was plotting 'genocide' against his people: 'There is no evidence of this.'
Media Reaction To The Report
The media reaction to the MPs' demolition of their case for war made just five years earlier inevitably included some ugly evasions. A Guardian editorial commented of Libya:
'It is easy in retrospect to lump it in with Iraq as a foreign folly...'
It is indeed easy 'to lump it in', it is near-identical in key respects. But as a major war crime, not a 'folly'.
'...and there are important parallels – not least the failure to plan for stabilisation and reconstruction'.
The preferred media focus being, as usual, so-called 'mistakes', lack of planning; rather than the fact that both wars were launched on outrageous lies, ended in the destruction of entire countries, and were driven by greed for resources. With impressive audacity, the Guardian preferred to cling to deceptions exposed by the very report under review:
'But it is also important to note differences between a gratuitous, proactive invasion and a response to a direct threat to the citizens of Benghazi, triggered by the spontaneous uprising of the Libyan people. Memories of Srebrenica spurred on decision-makers.' (Our emphasis)
In fact, propagandistic use of Srebrenica from sources like the Guardian 'spurred on decision-makers'. The whole point of the MPs' report is that it found no 'real evidence' for a massacre in Benghazi. Similarly, the Guardian's 'spontaneous uprising' is a debunked version of events peddled by government officials and media allies in 2011, despite the fact that there is 'no evidence that the UK Government carried out a proper analysis of the nature of the rebellion in Libya'. In fact the MPs' report makes a nonsense of the Guardian's claims for a humanitarian motive, noting:
'On 2 April 2011, Sidney Blumenthal, adviser and unofficial intelligence analyst to the then United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, reported this conversation with French intelligence officers to the Secretary of State:
'According to these individuals Sarkozy's plans are driven by the following issues:
'a. A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,
'b. Increase French influence in North Africa,
'c. Improve his internal political situation in France,
'd. Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world,
'e. Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi's long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa.'
The Guardian apologetic continued:
'Perhaps most critically, western intervention – fronted by France and the UK, but powered by the US – came under a United Nations security council resolution for the protection of civilians, after the Arab League called for a no-fly zone.'
But this, again, is absurd because the resolution, UNSCR 1973, 'neither explicitly authorised the deployment of ground forces nor addressed the questions of regime change', as the MPs' report noted. Nato had no more right to overthrow the Libyan government than the American and British governments had the right to invade Iraq.
In 2011, it was deeply disturbing to us that the barrage of political and media propaganda on Libya received far less challenge even than the earlier propaganda on Iraq. With Guardian and BBC 'humanitarian interventionists' leading the way, many people were misled on the need for 'action'. In a House of Commons vote on March 21, 2011, 557 MPs voted for war with just 13 opposing. Two names stand out among the 13 opponents: Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell.
Predictably, last month's exposure of the great Libya war fraud has done nothing to prompt corporate journalists to rethink their case for war in Syria - arguments based on similar claims from similar sources promoting similar 'humanitarian intervention'. Indeed, as this alert was being completed, the Guardian published an opinion piece by former Labour foreign secretary David Owen, calling for 'a no-fly zone (NFZ), with protected land corridors for humanitarian aid' in Syria, because: 'The humanitarian imperative is for the region to act and the world to help.'
In February 2003, the Guardian published a piece by the same David Owen titled: 'Wage war in Iraq for the sake of peace in the Middle East.' In 2011, Owen published an article in the Telegraph, titled: 'We have proved in Libya that intervention can still work.' He had himself 'called for... intervention' that February.
The Perpetual War machine rolls on.