January 1, 2017
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.
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 is little
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.”
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.”
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:
“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.
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 at rsterling1@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment