-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thursday, 19 November 1998 15:11 Subject: NZ items -interview with Butler/ talk by Chomsky ======================= A Conversation With Richard Butler - As the hawks wing over Iraq again, NewsRoom publishes an interview by Wellington journalist Jeremy Rose with Richard Butler. Richard Butler is the executive chairman of the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM), which is charged with ridding Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. In the interview, Mr. Butler answered questions on the sanctions regime, and on the Middle East double-standard relating to the continued possession of nuclear weapons by Israel. Mr. Butler refused to answer further questions on this last matter and walked out of the interview. This interview was part of the proceedings at the State of the World Forum held in San Francisco recently. Full Story in Top Stories wire: http://www.newsroom.co.nz/headline.htm - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - http://www.newsroom.co.nz/stories/HL9811/S00074.htm has: Posting to Top Stories Wire of the NewsRoom Editorial: Alastair Thompson Date: Saturday, 14 November 1998 Time: 3:39 am NZT Guilt Free War - The CNN Imperative Takes Over NEWSROOM NEWS ANALYSIS/COMMENTARY As the US media moves into full war cry the latest round of tensions in the Persian Gulf look set to again become a live action cinema of violence, anger, racism and hatred. Andt in the midst of all the news of how many warships and aircraft are available to pummel Iraq - the reason - Why the US is threatening to bomb Iraq? - has become completely obscured in a haze of nostalgia. Professor Noam Chomsky visited Wellington on Tuesday. Addressing a conference on academic freedom (see Tuesday Top Stories Wire for full report) he made several observations on the US media pertinent to the latest round of sabre rattling in the Gulf. In the US, he said, a not-so-subtle system of narrowing the range of legitimate questions that can be asked, binds the media. On foreign policy for example it was legitimate to ask: Is the US doing a good job in promoting democracy? But it was not legitimate, for example, to ask: Has US foreign policy in the last three months undermined global security ? On a quick reading of any newspaper in the US the phenomena becomes immediately apparent. A recent example is the issue of whether the Sudanese pharmaceuticals factory bombed by the US (in retaliation the bombing of US Embassies in Africa) was a legitimate target? In a lengthy investigative piece on the subject, the Wall St Journal in late October addressed the question from the point of view of asking, how good was the US intelligence that led to the bombing? It went on to inquire into the background of the factory's ownership and owners, seemingly finding little or no evidence of wrongdoing or hard evidence of a connection to the arms trade. (However this did not allow it to jump to any subjective conclusions, i.e. that it genuinely was a pharmaceuticals factory as appears to be the case.) Except in passing the article did not address the question of whether the US government had committed an illegal act of war against Sudan at international law. ( And it is difficult to see how the first strike bombing of an industrial facility in the capital city of a sovereign nation without UN authorisation could be anything other.) Nor did the article question of the morality of the US using its veto rights on the UN Security Council to prevent an inquiry into its questionable actions. Rather it focussed - in terms of Chomsky's construct - on asking whether it was possible the US might have made a - probably rare - mistake in an aspect of its grand plan to uphold democracy and the rule of the law on planet earth? This time Iraq is in the gun. What is the spin? How is the current war cry in the Middle East being justified? The answer is simple. It isn't. The US public do not need an explanation for why the military should want to bomb Iraq. Everybody in the US knows Saddam Hussein should have had his head kicked in years ago - 10 years of propaganda have seen to that. Using the word propaganda in this context is not an attempt to be cute. Propaganda can be defined as slanted media reports designed to engender public sympathy for the acts of war of one nation against another. This is exactly what the current round of reportage - throughout the first world - on imminent war in the gulf amounts to. Real concerns about the activities of UNSCOM raised over recent weeks, notably by the BBC and in UK papers, are not being reported in US papers. And they probably won't be. In any event they have now been obscured by the practicalities of kick-ass politics. When it comes to Iraq the US public don't have to be convinced to hate the Iraqi enemy. They already hate Saddam with a vengeance. The tragedy is that the distinction between the man Saddam (a monster) and the nation Iraq (a historic cradle of human civilisation) has disappeared. So far as the US public are concerned every cruise missile might as well be targeted personally at Saddam, and certainly at an untrustworthy lyin' stinkin' Arab. True the US President has given the explanation that someone has to back up UNSCOM in its weapons inspections role. A spokesman added that Iraq could get its weapons projects back underway in three or four weeks if they wanted to. However the facts of this matter are far less clear cut than it appears. The truth is the weapons inspections are substantially complete. Even Richard Butler no longer believes Iraq has any missile, chemical weapon or nuclear weapon technology. The dispute is now essentially over Iraq's attempts at a biological weapons programme. This could in itself be serious, however UNSCOM has not seen fit to provide any real information which would justify coming to such a conclusion. More significantly however the complaints by Iraq, namely: 1. that it is subject to inspection by an irrational and unaccountable organisation UNSCOM; 2. that UNSCOM is run by the US, UK and Israel to the exclusion of the rest of the security council; 3. and that the sanctions policy is unreasonably harsh and oppressive; all appear to be born out by the facts. See: INSIDE UNSCOM: The Scott Ritter Tape (2), and INSIDE UNSCOM: The Scott Ritter Tape (1) A Conversation With Richard Butler [at: http://www.newsroom.co.nz/stories/HL9811/S00089.htm ] As to the question of whether Iraq will start making weapons of mass destruction again. Why would it? It would surely know that if it did the American's would just kick their heads in with a few more "smart" bombs. And so the US military juggernaut continues to hurtle towards the precipice. All the while along the way the cheerleaders are becoming ever more insistent. "BOMB HIM. BOMB HIM. BOMB HIM", the papers scream. And now the CNN imperative has taken over the media. The public has become accustomed to seeing the US's magnificent fighting machines move into position. This is an arm chair sport. War-watchers can now safely stock the fridge and settle in for some excitement. Counting the array of weapons, and imagining the enormous firepower they are capable of delivering is entertaining for the public. The tension of live coverage of carnage inflicted as America stands up for the rights of the free world is irresistible. Under the CNN imperative war has to be short and sharp (so as not to lose the attention of the fickle TV viewing public). It has to be technologically explained - with minute detail, a la sports commentary. But no moral explanation is necessary - not simply because the reasons are taken as read - but because war _rates_, it rates very well and the last thing any ratings conscious news station wants to do is make its viewers contemplate their own moral turpitude. That would just make them change channel to somewhere they can get bomb-cam without guilt. Under the CNN imperative the delivery site of the bomb is examined by camera crews, post bombing. But reports are skeptical at the apparent carnage. The question asked is not how may people have died? But, what spin is the enemy's propaganda machine trying to put on our world-liberating bombing action? Above all, under the CNN imperative, war has to be safe - at least for those responsible for delivering the "smart" bombs (an expression which itself must surely be an oxymoron). This is because the weeping relatives of killed US pilots and servicemen tend to take the gloss off the viewing pleasure. Roll on chaos. According to the seers, mayhem is coming to a screen near you. I pray they are wrong. Alastair Thompson ----------------------------------------------------------------- The newsroom can be found at http://www.newsroom.co.nz ***** "Messages sent on the IWW-news mailing list are the opinions of the individual senders; they do not necessarily represent the views of the IWW. IWW-news is for posting information which is relevant to the struggle of the working class against our bosses. Visit http://www.iww.org/ for more information." To subscribe/unsubscribe from the IWW-news mailing list please send e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" as the subject of the message. Leftlink - Australia's Broad Left Mailing List As vilified, slandered and attacked by One Nation mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alexia.net.au/~www/mhutton/index.html Sponsored by Melbourne's New International Bookshop Subscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=subscribe%20leftlink Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20leftlink
