Posts
The War Against Alternative Information
The
U.S. government is creating a new $160 million bureaucracy to shut
down information that doesn’t conform to U.S. propaganda
narratives, building on the strategy that sold the bloody Syrian
“regime change” war, writes Rick Sterling.
By
Rick Sterling
The
U.S. establishment is not content simply to have domination over the
media narratives on critical foreign policy issues, such as Syria,
Ukraine and Russia. It wants total domination. Thus we now have the
“Countering
Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act”
that President Obama signed into law on Dec. 23 as part of
the National
Defense Authorization Act for 2017,
setting aside $160 million to combat any “propaganda” that
challenges Official Washington’s version of reality.
Samantha
Power, Permanent Representative of the United States to the UN,
addresses the Security Council meeting on Syria, Sept. 25, 2016.
Power has been an advocate for escalating U.S. military involvement
in Syria. (UN Photo)
The
new law mandates the U.S. Secretary of State to collaborate with the
Secretary of Defense, Director of National Intelligence and other
federal agencies to create a Global Engagement Center “to lead,
synchronize, and coordinate efforts of the Federal Government to
recognize, understand, expose, and counter foreign state and
non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining
United States national security interests.” The law directs the
Center to be formed in 180 days and to share expertise among agencies
and to “coordinate with allied nations.”
The
legislation was initiated in March 2016, as the demonization of
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russia was already underway and
was enacted amid the allegations of “Russian hacking” around the
U.S. presidential election and the mainstream media’s furor over
supposedly “fake news.” Defeated Democratic presidential nominee
Hillary Clinton voiced strong support for the bill: “It’s
imperative that leaders in both the private sector and the public
sector step up to protect our democracy, and innocent lives.”
The
new law is remarkable for a number of reasons, not the least because
it merges a
new McCarthyism about
purported dissemination of Russian “propaganda” on the Internet
with a
new Orwellianism by
creating a kind of Ministry of Truth – or Global Engagement Center
– to protect the American people from “foreign propaganda and
disinformation.”
As
part of the effort to detect and defeat these unwanted narratives,
the law authorizes the Center to: “Facilitate the use of a wide
range of technologies and techniques by sharing expertise among
Federal departments and agencies, seeking expertise from external
sources, and implementing best practices.” (This section is an
apparent reference to proposals that Google, Facebook and other
technology companies find ways to block or brand certain Internet
sites as purveyors
of “Russian propaganda” or “fake news.”)
Justifying
this new bureaucracy, the bill’s sponsors argued that the existing
agencies for “strategic
communications”
and “public
diplomacy”
were not enough, that the information threat required “a
whole-of-government approach leveraging all elements of national
power.”
The
law also is rife with irony since the U.S. government and related
agencies are among the world’s biggest purveyors of propaganda and
disinformation – or what you might call evidence-free claims, such
as the recent accusations of Russia hacking into Democratic emails to
“influence” the U.S. election.
Despite
these accusations — leaked by the Obama administration and embraced
as true by the mainstream U.S. news media — there islittle
or no public evidence to
support the charges. There is also a contradictory analysis by
veteran U.S. intelligence professionals as well as statements
by Wikileaks
founder Julian Assange and
an associate, former
British Ambassador Craig Murray,
that the Russians were not the source of the leaks. Yet, the
mainstream U.S. media has virtually ignored this counter-evidence,
appearing eager to collaborate with the new “Global Engagement
Center” even before it is officially formed.
Of
course, there is a long history of U.S. disinformation and
propaganda. Former CIA agents Philip Agee and John Stockwell
documented how it was done decades ago, secretly planting “black
propaganda” and covertly funding media outlets to influence events
around the world, with much of the fake news blowing back into the
American media.
In
more recent decades, the U.S. government has adopted an Internet-era
version of that formula with an emphasis on having the State
Department or the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy
supply, train and pay “activists” and “citizen journalists”
to create and distribute propaganda and false stories via “social
media” and via contacts with the mainstream media. The U.S.
government’s strategy also seeks to undermine and discredit
journalists who challenge this orthodoxy. The new legislation
escalates this information war by tossing another $160 million into
the pot.
Propaganda
and Disinformation on Syria
Syria
is a good case study in the modern application of information
warfare. In her memoir Hard
Choices,
former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote that the U.S.
provided “support for (Syrian) civilian opposition groups,
including satellite-linked computers, telephones, cameras, and
training for more than a thousand activists, students and independent
journalists.”
A
heart-rending propaganda image designed to justify a major U.S.
military operation inside Syria against the Syrian military.
Indeed,
a huge amount of money has gone to “activists” and “civil
society” groups in Syria and other countries that have been
targeted for “regime change.” A lot of the money also goes to
parent organizations that are based in the United States and Europe,
so these efforts do not only support on-the-ground efforts to
undermine the targeted countries, but perhaps even more importantly,
the money influences and manipulates public opinion in the West.
In
North America, representatives from the Syrian “Local
Coordination Committees”(LCC)
were frequent guests on popular media programs such as
“DemocracyNow.” The message was clear: there is a “revolution”
in Syria against a “brutal regime” personified in Bashar
al-Assad. It was not mentioned that the “Local Coordination
Committees” have been primarily funded by the West, specifically
the Office for Syrian Opposition Support, which was founded by the
U.S. State Department and the U.K. Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
More
recently, news and analysis about Syria has been conveyed through the
filter of the White Helmets, also known as Syrian Civil Defense. In
the Western news media, the White Helmets are described as neutral,
non-partisan, civilian volunteers courageously carrying out rescue
work in the war zone. In fact, the group is none
of the above. It
was initiated by the U.S. and U.K. using a British military
contractor and Brooklyn-based marketing company.
While
they may have performed some genuine rescue operations, the White
Helmets are primarily a media organization with a political goal: to
promote NATO intervention in Syria. (The manipulation of public
opinion using the White Helmets and promoted by the New York Times
and Avaaz petition for a “No Fly Zone” in Syria is
documented here.)
The
White Helmets hoax continues to be widely believed and receives
uncritical promotion though it has increasingly been exposed at
alternative media outlets as the creation of a “shady
PR firm.”
During critical times in the conflict in Aleppo, White Helmet
individuals have been used as the source for important news stories
despite a track record of deception.
Recent
Propaganda: Blatant Lies?
As
the armed groups in east Aleppo recently lost ground and then
collapsed, Western governments and allied media went into a frenzy of
accusations against Syria and Russia based on reports from sources
connected with the armed opposition. CNN host Wolf Blitzer described
Aleppo as “falling” in a “slaughter of these women and
children” while CNN host Jake Tapper referred to “genocide by
another name.”
War
damage in the once-thriving Syrian city of Aleppo.
The
Daily Beast published the claims of the Aleppo Siege Media Center
under the title “Doomsday
is held in Aleppo” and
amid accusations that the Syrian army was executing civilians,
burning them alive and “20 women committed suicide in order not to
be raped.” These sensational claims were widely broadcast without
verification. However, this “news” on CNN and throughout Western
media came from highly biased sources and many of the claims –
lacking anything approaching independent corroboration – could be
accurately described as propaganda and disinformation.
Ironically,
some of the supposedly “Russian propaganda” sites, such as RT,
have provided first-hand on-the-ground reporting from the war zones
with verifiable information that contradicts the Western narrative
and thus has received almost no attention in the U.S. news media. For
instance, some of these non-Western outlets have shown videos of
popular celebrations over the “liberation of Aleppo.”
There
has been further corroboration of these realities from peace
activists, such as Jan Oberg of Transnational Foundation for Peace
and Future Research who published a photo
essay of
his eyewitness observations in Aleppo including the happiness of
civilians from east Aleppo reaching the government-controlled areas
of west Aleppo, finally freed from areas that had been controlled by
Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate and its jihadist allies in Ahrar
al-Sham.
Dr.
Nabil Antaki, a medical doctor from Aleppo, described the liberation
of Aleppo in an interview titled “Aleppo
is Celebrating, Free from Terrorists, the Western Media
Misinformed.” The
first Christmas celebrations in Aleppo in four years are
shown here, replete
with marching band members in Santa Claus outfits. Journalist Vanessa
Beeley has published testimonies of
civilians from east Aleppo. The happiness of civilians at their
liberation is clear.
Whether
or not you wish to accept these depictions of the reality in Aleppo,
at a minimum, they reflect another side of the story that you have
been denied while being persistently force-fed the version favored by
the U.S. State Department. The goal of the new Global Engagement
Center to counter “foreign propaganda” is to ensure that you
never get to hear this alternative narrative to the Western
propaganda line.
Even
much earlier, contrary to the Western mythology of rebel “liberated
zones,” there was strong evidence that the armed groups were never
popular in Aleppo. American journalist James Foley described the
situation in 2012 like this:
Journalist
James Foley shortly before he was executed by an Islamic State
operative.
“Aleppo,
a city of about 3 million people, was once the financial heart of
Syria. As it continues to deteriorate, many civilians here are losing
patience with the increasingly violent and unrecognizable opposition
— one that is hampered by infighting and a lack of structure, and
deeply infiltrated by both foreign fighters and terrorist groups. 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.”
On
Nov. 22, 2012, Foley was kidnapped in northwestern Syria and held by
Islamic State terrorists before his beheading in August 2014.
The
Overall Narrative on Syria
Analysis
of the Syrian conflict boils down to two competing narratives. One
narrative is that the conflict is a fight for freedom and democracy
against a brutal regime, a storyline promoted in the West and the
Gulf states, which have been fueling
the conflict from the start.
This narrative is also favored by some self-styled
“anti-imperialists” who want a “Syrian revolution.”
The
other narrative is that the conflict is essentially a war of
aggression against a sovereign state, with the aggressors including
NATO countries, Gulf monarchies, Israel and Jordan. Domination of the
Western media by these powerful interests is so thorough that one
almost never gets access to this second narrative, which is
essentially banned from not only the mainstream but also much of the
liberal and progressive media.
For
example, listeners and viewers of the generally progressive TV and
radio program “DemocracyNow” have rarely if ever heard the second
narrative described in any detail. Instead, the program frequently
broadcasts the statements of Hillary Clinton, U.S. Ambassador to the
United Nations Samantha Power and others associated with the U.S.
position. Rarely do you hear the viewpoint of the Syrian Ambassador
to the United Nations, the Syrian Foreign Minister or analysts inside
Syria and around the world who have written about and follow events
there closely.
“DemocracyNow”
also has done repeated interviews with proponents of the “Syrian
revolution” while ignoring analysts who call the conflict a war of
aggression sponsored by the West and the Gulf monarchies. This
blackout of the second narrative continues despite the fact that many
prominent international figures see it as such. For example, the
former Foreign Minister of Nicaragua and former President of the UN
General Assembly, Father Miguel D’Escoto, has said, “What the
U.S. government is doing in Syria is tantamount to a war of
aggression, which, according to the Nuremberg Tribunal, is the worst
possible crime a State can commit against another State.”
In
many areas of politics, “DemocracyNow” is excellent and
challenges mainstream media. However in this area, coverage of the
Syrian conflict, the broadcast is biased, one-sided and echoes the
news and analysis of mainstream Western corporate media, showing the
extent of control over foreign policy news that already exists in the
United States and Europe.
Suppressing
and Censoring Challenges
Despite
the widespread censorship of alternative analyses on Syria and other
foreign hotspots that already exists in the West, the U.S.
government’s new “Global Engagement Center” will seek to ensure
that the censorship is even more complete with its goal to “counter
foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation.” We can
expect even more aggressive and better-financed assaults on the few
voices daring to challenge the West’s “group thinks” – smear
campaigns that are already quite extensive.
The
“White Helmets” symbol, expropriating the name of “Syria Civil
Defense.”
In
an article titled “Controlling
the Narrative on Syria”,
Louis Allday describes the criticisms and attacks on journalists
Rania Khalek and Max Blumenthal for straying from the “approved”
Western narrative on Syria. Some of the bullying and abuse has come
from precisely those people, such as Robin Yassin-Kassab, who have
been frequent guests in liberal Western media.
Reporters
who have returned from Syria with accounts that challenge the
propaganda themes that have permeated the Western media also have
come under attack. For instance, Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett
recently returned to North America after being in Syria and Aleppo,
conveying a very different image and critical of the West’s biased
media coverage. Bartlett appeared at a United Nations press
conference and
then did numerous interviews across the country during a speaking
tour. During the course of her talks and presentation, Bartlett
criticized the White Helmets and questioned whether it was true that
Al Quds Hospital in opposition-held East Aleppo was attacked and
destroyed as claimed.
Bartlett’s
recounting of this information made her a target of Snopes, which has
been a mostly useful website exposing urban legends and false rumors
but has come under criticism itself for some internal challenges and
has been inconsistent in its investigations. In one report entitled
“White
Helmet Hearsay,” Snopes’
writer Bethania Palmer says claims the White Helmets are “linked to
terrorists” is “unproven,” but she overlooks numerous videos,
photos, and other reports showing White Helmet members celebrating a
Nusra/Al Qaeda battle victory, picking up the bodies of civilians
executed by a Nusra executioner, and having a member who
alternatively appears as a rebel/terrorist fighter with a weapon and
later wearing a White Helmet uniform. The “fact check” barely
scrapes the surface of public evidence.
The
same writer did another shallow “investigation” titled “victim
blaming” regarding
Bartlett’s critique of White Helmet videos and what happened at the
Al Quds Hospital in Aleppo. Bartlett suggests that some White Helmet
videos may be fabricated and may feature the same child at different
times, i.e., photographs that appear to show the same girl being
rescued by White Helmet workers at different places and times. While
it is uncertain whether this is the same girl, the similarity is
clear.
The
Snopes writer goes on to criticize Bartlett for her comments about
the reported bombing of Al Quds Hospital in east Aleppo in April
2016. A statement at the website of
Doctors Without Borders says the building was “destroyed and
reduced to rubble,” but this was clearly false since photos show
the building with unclear damage. Five months later, the September
2016 report by
Doctors Without Borders says the top two floors of the building were
destroyed and the ground floor Emergency Room damaged yet they
re-opened in two weeks.
The
many inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements of Doctors
Without Borders resulted in an open
letter to
them. In their last report, Doctors Without Borders (known by its
French initials, MSF) acknowledges that “MSF staff did not directly
witness the attack and has not visited Al Quds Hospital since 2014.”
Bartlett
referenced satellite images taken before and after the reported
attack on the hospital. The images do not show severe damage and it
is unclear whether or not there is any damage to the roof, the basis
for Bartlett’s statement. In the past week, independent journalists
have visited the scene of Al Quds Hospital and report that that the
top floors of the building are still there and damage is unclear.
The
Snopes’ investigation criticizing Bartlett was superficial and
ignored the broader issues of accuracy and integrity in the Western
media’s depiction of the Syrian conflict. Instead the article
appeared to be an effort to discredit the eyewitness observations and
analysis of a journalist who dared challenge the mainstream
narrative.
U.S.
propaganda and disinformation on Syria has been extremely effective
in misleading much of the American population. Thus, most Americans
are unaware how many billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on
yet another “regime change” project. The propaganda campaign –
having learned from the successful demonizations of Iraq’s Saddam
Hussein, Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi and other targeted leaders – has
been so masterful regarding Syria that many liberal and progressive
news outlets were pulled in. It has been left to RT and some Internet
outlets to challenge the U.S. government and the mainstream media.
But
the U.S. government’s near total control of the message doesn’t
appear to be enough. Apparently even a few voices of dissent are a
few voices too many.
The
enactment of HR5181, “Countering Foreign Propaganda and
Disinformation,” suggests that the ruling powers seek to escalate
suppression of news and analyses that run counter to the official
narrative. Backed by a new infusion of $160 million, the plan is to
further squelch skeptical voices with operation for “countering”
and “refuting” what the U.S. government deems to be propaganda
and disinformation.
As
part of the $160 million package, funds can be used to hire or reward
“civil society groups, media content providers, nongovernmental
organizations, federally funded research and development centers,
private companies, or academic institutions.”
Among
the tasks that these private entities can be hired to perform is to
identify and investigate both print and online sources of news that
are deemed to be distributing “disinformation, misinformation, and
propaganda directed at the United States and its allies and
partners.”
In
other words, we are about to see an escalation of the information
war.
Rick
Sterling is an independent investigative journalist. He lives in the
San Francisco Bay Area and can be reached atrsterling1@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.