It should come as no surprise to us that the popular narratives as presented by the dominant for-profit media sources can often get a story wrong due to various factors of ownership, advertisement, sources, ideology and flak. Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman call explaining these diversions of fact “the Propaganda Model.”
Last year Herman and Chicago-based researcher David Peterson published Politika genocida, a book which follows popular narratives on proclaimed acts of genocide (i.e. Darfur, Rwanda, Kosovo) and un-proclaimed (i.e. Iraq). They carefully separate fact from fiction and found that, "The anomaly of disparate word usage (and differential attention and indignation) can only be explained by the adaptation of the media and intellectual to the propaganda and public relations needs of the Western political establishment,” and that, "The Western establishment rushed to proclaim 'genocide' in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Rwanda, Kosovo, and Darfur, and also agitated for tribunals to hold the alleged perpetrators accountable. In contrast, its silence over the crimes committed by its own regimes against the peoples of Southeast Asia, Central America, and Sub-Saharan Africa is deafening. This is the 'politics of genocide.'"
We can certainly see this today with the violence in Libya as opposed to the violence in Iraq. What is worse is that while the violence in Iraq against intellectuals and dissidents is clearly coming from the Iraqi government-under-US-occupation, there are growing concerns that the narrative in Libya about a popular peaceful democratic uprising may not be accurate. On February 20, 2011 Hill referred to it as “pro-democracy demonstrations” and US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, said, “We're very concerned about reports of firing on peaceful protesters." But images of hangings and gun-wielding protesters cast doubt on this claim.
Initially the protests were calls for a “constitutional monarchy,” thus providing stark differences to other uprisings throughout the region where there have been calls for democracy and free and fair elections.
And as violence escalated in Libya there became claims that Gaddafi has hired “black African mercenaries” to violently put down the "peaceful protests."
Racism has longed plague Libya and black Africans like most indigenous people have often been the victims of oppression. In October of 2000 BBC je poročal, da so »lokalni prebivalci napadli na tisoče afriških priseljencev, ki živijo v Libiji. Nekateri so se morali zateči na svoja veleposlaništva.«
Pred nekaj več kot enim letom ZN Watch, veja mednarodne organizacije za človekove pravice, je izdala poročilo o rasizmu v Libiji: »Libija mora končati s prakso rasne diskriminacije temnopoltih Afričanov, zlasti z rasnim preganjanjem dveh milijonov temnopoltih afriških delavcev migrantov. Obstaja veliko dokazov o libijskem vzorcu in praksi rasne diskriminacije delavcev migrantov.«
Against the backdrop we can start to understand that some of the current fighting between black Africans and Arabs has more to do with race relations than politics.
Več na Mesečni pregled, one of their editors, Yoshie Furuhashi, said, “Al Jazeera reports that Black African workers now live in fear in the rebel-held territories in Libya. Some of them have been attacked by mobs, others have been imprisoned, and some of their homes and workshops have been torched. ‘Many African workers say they felt safer under the Gaddafi regime,’ says Al Jazeera's Jacky Rowland, reporting from Benghazi,” and that “It will probably take some time before the rest of the Left catches on to the counterfeit nature of the product sold to the world.”
23. februarja 2011 je bil v UNHCR, said that the UN "has become increasingly concerned" about the many African migrants and asylum seekers in Libya. "We have no access at this time to the refugee community," according to Melissa Fleming, a UNHCR spokesperson.
A couple of days later a journalist for UK’s Daily Mail je v Bengaziju pokrival "plačance", ko je poročal:
Afričani, ki sem jih videl, so bili od 20-letnika do enega v poznih 40-ih z osivelo brado. Večina je bila oblečena v vsakdanja oblačila. Ko so ugotovili, da govorim angleško, so protestirali.
"Nič nismo storili," mi je rekel eden, preden so ga utišali. »Vsi smo gradbeni delavci iz Gane. Nikogar nismo poškodovali.«
Drugi od obtoženih, moški v zelenem kombinezonu, je pokazal na barvo na svojih rokavih in dejal: "To je moje delo." Ne znam streljati s pištolo.«
Abdul Nasser, 47-letnik, je protestiral: Lažejo o nas. Ponoči so nas odpeljali iz hiše, ko smo spali.« Še vedno so se pritoževali in so jih odpeljali. Težko je bilo oceniti njihovo krivdo.
Isti dan BBC je poročal: »En turški gradbeni delavec je za BBC povedal: 'Za naše podjetje je delalo 70-80 ljudi iz Čada. Ubili so jih s sekirami in sekirami, napadalci pa so govorili: 'Gadafiju zagotavljate vojsko.' Tudi Sudanci so bili pobiti. Videli smo sami."
Another example to highlight the race factor: There is a video of the protesters floating around the internet showing them chanting, "We are Arabs!"
O International Business Times carried a story on Tuesday that said,
Po poročilih je več kot 150 črnih Afričanov iz vsaj ducata različnih držav pobegnilo iz Libije z letalom in pristalo na letališču v Nairobiju v Keniji z grozljivimi zgodbami o nasilju.
"Napadali so nas domačini, ki so rekli, da smo plačanci, ki ubijajo ljudi. Naj povem, da niso želeli videti temnopoltih ljudi," je za Reuters povedal Julius Kiluu, 60-letni gradbeni nadzornik.
Meanwhile the US is posturing for a possible military intervention in Libya. How convenient. While constitutional monarchists are trying to overthrow the government and are attacking black Africans the US is running with the popular narrative of Gaddafi violently putting down peaceful protests for democracy.
Yesterday US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, applauded the removal of Libya from the Human Rights Council by saying, “The General Assembly today has made it clear that governments that turn their guns on their own people have no place on the Human Rights Council.”
The question to be asked of the US is if tea party activists began a violent uprising to overthrow the government and replace it with a constitutional monarchy while chanting "We are Whites!" and massacring immigrants, indigenous people and racial minorities, would the US have a legitimate claim to use force to put it down? The question is speculative but there is good reason to believe that yes the government would.
And of course the government of Bahrain has fired on unarmed protesters who actually are trying to overthrow a dictatorship in favor of democracy but since the US government has warm ties with the dictatorship and already has military bases and a naval fleet present there are no threats of US intervention.
This is not a peaceful protest for democracy. It’s a violent uprising to install a monarchy, which is also violently going after immigrants and indigenous peoples (black Africans) who apparently feel safer under Gaddafi than they do “free Libya.” Is it possible that the “black mercenaries” who are fighting with the protesters are defending Gaddafi’s regime in order to protect themselves from persecution? Possibly. The point herre is that we should be aware that things aren’t always how they appear, especially when those who control how we are informed have their own reasons to get the facts wrong.
There are usually three criteria for the use of force by the US:
- The victim can be portrayed as evil.
- The victim is defenseless.
- The victim has something we want.
Gaddafi is certainly a tyrant. He is no liberator or working class revolutionary. He is a dictator. Libya is also no match for the US military, who outspends the world combined. And Libya is rich in oil.
We don’t know exactly what is going on. More information is needed, but we have enough to know that the real story is far from the popular narrative and that that narrative is being used as a useful tool to justify US military force.
ZNetwork se financira izključno z velikodušnostjo svojih bralcev.
Donate