The following advertisement, sponsored by Australians for Palestine, appeared in newspapers across Australia today, including the Sydney Morning Herald and Australian. I added my signature to endorse the proposal for the Australian parliament to recognise the Palestinian people and their dispossession since 1948.
Tag Archive for 'mainstream-media'
Being undercover as a Western journalist in Burma.
My following article appears in the Amnesty International Australia’s Uncensor campaign about human rights in China:
China’s rapid growth is often forgotten when analysing the country’s human rights record, but these issues should not be ignored in the rush for super-power status, writes Antony Loewenstein.
Amidst all the current stories about China and the Beijing Olympics, it’s easy to forget that the country has progressed extraordinarily fast in the past decade. Some facts are in order:
- 30,000: The expected number of Chinese MBA graduates in 2008. The number in 1998: 0
- 500: The number of coal-fired power plants China plans to build in the next decade
- 540 million: Number of mobile phone users in China, with an increase of 44 million in the past six months
- 33: The number of Chinese journalists thought to be held in prisons in 2008
- 22: The number of suicides per 100,000 people, about 50 per cent higher than the global average. Suicide is the fifth most common cause of death in China, and the first among people aged between 20 and 35
- 30: The number of different animal penises on the menu at Guolizhuang, Beijing’s ‘penis emporium’. A yak’s costs about £15, while a tiger’s (which must be pre-ordered) will set you back £3,000
The rise of China continues to fascinate and frustrate the world. Very few other nations would warrant leading articles discussing the “dark side” of its existence.
Of course, China has come a long way in the last years, something revealed by this hilarious news story from 1982 about “sexy adverts” upsetting a Chinese workman. At that stage, advertising had only returned to public visibility after years of being banned as a “bourgeois capitalist practice.”
The last months have revealed intense anger towards perceived Western-led, anti-Chinese media coverage. Death threats against foreign journalists is increasing, according to a recent warning issued by the Beijing-based Foreign Correspondents Club. Chinese bloggers want to talk about patriotism and protestors in Korea who attacked Chinese students during the torch relay. Interestingly, Vietnamese bloggers recently expressed their displeasure about past Chinese behaviour.
Despite these issues, however, the regime is busily trying to present a welcoming face to the hundreds of thousands of visitors expected in August. The news that authorities won’t guarantee web freedom during the Games is a bad omen as is the arrest of yet another freelance writer. Zhou Yuanzhi was charged with “inciting subversion of state power.”
Tibet remains a thorn in the side of the authorities (and a provocative piece in last week’s Financial Times argued that the province had a stronger international law case for self-rule than Kosovo). The Dalai Lama and his cause are still misunderstood in the West. The leader of the Tibetan people is angry towards China but remarkably conciliatory. The charged area of Xinjiang remains under the Chinese jackboot.
While the political masters attempt to avoid potential embarrassments, Western multinationals continue to operate like business as usual (despite Google being investigated by Chinese officials for possibly breaching state secrecy laws by showing “illegal” maps of the country.)
Google co-founder Sergei Brin told last week’s shareholder meeting that he was “pretty proud of what we’ve been able to accomplish in China…Google has a far superior track record than other internet search companies in China.” What’s a little censorship when there is money to be made? Unveiling a translation service to rival search engine’s Baidu’s dominance is a clear sign of future directions. At least Reporters Without Borders asked a few pointed questions at the Adidas shareholders meeting about the company’s attitude to human rights abuse in China. They received little positive response.
The Western fear of China is never far below the surface, however. China bashing is the favoured sport of the American presidential nominees but achieves little. Respectful dialogue between the various sides is the only rational way forward.
Professional journalists, your days are numbered:
User-generated content has been buzzed about in magazine circles for a few years, but editors—save for a select few—have largely been reluctant to turn over pages from their shrinking folios to readers. Now, a magazine is taking the concept to its extreme: a 100-percent user-generated issue.
For its June issue, Budget Travel has allowed its readers to generate all of the text and photography—only the “40 Best Deals” section was written by staffers.
Interactivity and trust between readers and editors is a successful way to ensure future success. Why shouldn’t consumers have the right to contribute to their own reading lists?
Back in 2004, I interviewed a stateless refugee housed on Manus Island by the former Australian government. Aladdin Sisalem was a kind, quietly-spoken man who simply craved a better life for himself, but John Howard’s system wanted him to suffer for this desire.
I met with Aladdin a few times in Melbourne after his release. He seemed to be struggling with his new life, unsure what he would do and without a clear directive from the government on his legal status.
But now life has apparently turned the corner:
Coming to Australia after 18 months held in the Manus Island detention centre — 10 of them by himself — Aladdin Sisalem felt he had finally found a new beginning.
Instead, the stateless Kuwaiti-born Palestinian found that he had merely exchanged one form of living in limbo for another. He was placed on a temporary protection visa that banned him from applying for permanent protection for five years.
He has spent the past four years not knowing if he would have to uproot himself and try all over again to find another country to take him at the end of next year.
It is only now, after a change of government, that a relieved Mr Sisalem has been told his wait has been cut short by a year. He can apply immediately for permanent residency in Australia.
For the first time since he fled persecution after a backlash against Palestinians in Kuwait on November 15, 2000, the United Nations-certified refugee may have somewhere to call home.
“They called me last week as promised and told me the office of the Minister of Immigration has agreed to specify a shorter period to process your application,” he said.
The wait to apply for permanency, and its accompanying right to visit overseas, has come at a heavy personal cost for him.
The recklessness and cruelty of the Howard government towards asylum seekers will shame Australia for years to come.
The mainstream media, the internet and blogs being parasitic. Where to from here?
CNN provides a priceless headline that perfectly articulates the brainlessness of Republican presidential nominee John McCain:
McCain promises to fight ‘evil’ if president.
Eight years of George W. Bush fighting “evil” has been an amazing success. Clearly McCain is keen to follow in his mentor’s path.
Barack Obama now appears likely to clinch the Democratic Party nomination. Hillary Clinton is hanging on for dear life but her hopes are probably futile. I can’t say I’m upset about this, despite my serious doubts about Obama’s ability or interest in seriously changing America’s foreign policy.
The mainstream media, however, seems obsessed with the trivialities of the campaign, rather than the policies of either candidate. Personality, looks and irrelevancies are highlighted as signs of strength or weakness.
And the master of this slime is the Drudge Report, one of the most popular websites in the US.
How we are being sold a war with Iran.
After years of propagating lies about Iraq and its alleged threat to the world, the New York Times continues to publish Bush administration talking points, this time outlining the supposed menace of Iran.
Critical thinking? Don’t expect that from the “paper of record.”
I was recently interviewed by Peshawa Muhammed of the Kurdistani Nwe Newspaper, the publication of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan in Iraqi Kurdistan (Noam Chomsky was also interviewed recently.) The article ran on May 4:
Peshawa Muhammed: Five years on, how do you assess the current US policy in Iraq? Which option do you think can finally put an end to the ongoing fiasco; partition or keeping Iraq united?
Antony Loewenstein: The Iraq war is one of the greatest crimes of my lifetime. After more than five years, the death of over 4000 American troops, over a million Iraqis and millions of displaced refugees, the decision to invade and occupy the nation remains a disaster on all levels. The majority of polls in Iraq since 2003 find citizens believe life under Saddam, as brutal as it was, remains preferable. Foreign troops must leave the country as quickly as possible and the future of Iraq decided by Iraqis alone. I am against partition because it appears most citizens oppose it. The international community has a responsibility to assist the Iraqi government to get back on its feet. The current regime in Baghdad’s Green Zone is an illegitimate puppet of Washington, creating Shia death squads to obliterate potential enemies. Ethnic cleansing must stop.
Muhammed: Previously, Australian Defence Minister Brendan Nelson has admitted that securing oil supplies is a key factor behind the presence of Australian troops in Iraq. How do you explain the Australian objectives in the Iraq War?
Loewenstein: Australia, like many so-called allies in the war against Iraq, joined the Bush administration out of compulsion, fear and gutlessness. The previous Australian government, led by Prime Minister John Howard, was an unashamed fan of Bush and his “war on terror” policies – by pure coincidence, he was in Washington on September 11, 2001 – and believed that “democracy” should be imported by bombing and occupying a nation. Oil was certainly a key reason for the war as was securing a new, post-Saudi Arabia staging post in the Middle East. The US embassy in Baghdad, the largest in the world, indicates that America never had any intention of leaving.
Muhammed: If Iraq eventually fails as a state, what alternatives are there for the future of Iraqi Kurdistan and what assumptions are made by each alternative? Will Independent Iraqi Kurdistan be a viable option?
Loewenstein: The idea that Iraq is a state is clearly the invention of the Western powers just under one hundred years ago. Iraqi Kurdistan has the right to autonomy and independence, if a fair and free vote is taken. Of course, Turkey and the central Iraqi government oppose such a move, but it is probably inevitable. It is encouraging that Iraqi Kurdistan has benefited from the invasion and largely prospered. A ray of light in a sea of darkness.
Muhammed: Nothing or little is known about Australian-Kurdish relations. To the best of your knowledge, how does Australia view the Kurdish question in Iraq?
Loewenstein: There is a stable Kurdish population in Australia that receives little media coverage or discrimination, as far as I know. When the largest protest in the country’s history took place in 2003 against the Iraq war, the Kurds here were one of the few groups, aside from the Howard government, to encourage America to invade. In terms of Australian attitudes towards the Kurdish question, this is a difficult question. There is general sympathy for groups that are legitimately calling for a homeland – such as the Palestinians – but the issue receives little attention. My gut feeling is that there would be concern over creating a Kurdish state and increasing instability in the region.
Muhammed: What will happen of the coalition forces withdraw from Iraq prematurely? Regardless of the causes of the war and its eligibility, don’t you think it is the responsibility of the invading forces to restore peace and order before leaving Iraq?
Loewenstein: The international community certainly have a responsibility to assist the Iraqis, but poll after poll has found since 2003 that a majority of Iraqi people want foreign troops to leave. Indeed, much of the insurgency is directed at foreign troops. I fear that the Western powers will continually say that the country is too unstable to withdraw troops, therefore ensuing an endless occupation (something seemingly suggested by Republican presidential nominee John McCain.) There are other ways to support the country other than American troops, such as food aid, infrastructure support, financial compensation and the UN.
Muhammed: What are your general recommendations and advice for the future US Policy in Iraq?
Loewenstein: The US operates under the delusion that it had and continues to have the right to occupy Iraqi indefinitely. The countless examples of abuse committed by US troops against the Iraqi people must be compensated. Lessons must be learned, namely that the mentality that led the country to invade a nation that didn’t threaten it in any way has been counter-productive, weakened Israel, emboldened Iran and allowed China and India to continue to challenge Washington’s dominance of the globe, not a bad thing, in my opinion.
How to fund good journalism in the future, a discussion.
Who says newspapers are dying?
My following article appears in the Amnesty International Australia’s Uncensor campaign about human rights in China:
With only 100 days until the Beijing Games, human rights activists are continuing to pressure the Chinese regime and authorities may be starting to feel the pressure, writes Antony Loewenstein.
After months of criticism of its human rights record, a conference in Beijing in late April attempted to challenge the Western perception. Luo Haocai, director of the China Society for Human Rights, said that, “China believes human rights like other rights are not ‘absolute’ and the rights enjoyed should conform to obligations fulfilled”.
After 30 years of rapid growth, he said, the Chinese people enjoyed religious freedom, political and social rights. Wang Chen, director of the Information Office at the State Council, agreed. “China is a developing country with a population of 1.3 billion and China’s human rights development still faces many problems and difficulties.” It’s a view unlikely to be shared by many in the West.
The Beijing Olympics continue to be a rallying cry for human rights activists. Advocacy group Dream for Darfur is now targeting corporate sponsors of the Games, including Coca Cola and McDonalds. BHP Billiton is accused of not speaking out on the ongoing genocide in Darfur. BHP was one of only eight companies to receive an “F” grade for its “moral failings” over Sudan.
Even the Germany Foreign Ministry, in a confidential report leaked to Spiegel, found “significant” failings over human rights, including excessive use of the death penalty, holding dissidents for no apparent reason, censoring the media and an inability to handle criticism. Torture was rampant.
None of these concerns seem to concern most Western companies, however. At a recent China International Exhibition of Police Equipment, countless multinationals displayed goods specifically designed to repress Chinese citizens. The New York Times questioned whether the export of such items might have breached a law passed in Congress after the 1989 Tiananmen Square killings. Like for many internet companies, China is a booming market, seemingly difficult to resist.
There are growing signs, however, that some companies are learning from past mistakes. Yahoo, after launching a Human Rights Funds last year to provide legal and humanitarian assistance for political dissidents, appears to be at least trying to mitigate its previous collusion with the Chinese regime. Yahoo boss Jerry Yang said last week: “I think that I’m a big believer in the American values (but) as we operate around the world, we don’t walk around having a very heavy-handed American point of view.”
Google’s recent announcement of an expanded Chinese workforce is cause for concern, however as was Yahoo’s recent involvement in a “One World, One Web” conference in Beijing.
The Chinese people themselves remain defiant and hurt by the international criticism of their government’s human rights record (though there is some dissent online). Chinese students in the US are battling what they see as biased media coverage and in China itself citizens recently said they trusted state media more than Western outlets to accurately report the Olympic torch relay.
CNN remains in the firing line and Chinese hackers are operating with tacit government support to disable foreign websites.
With 100 days until the beginning of the Beijing Games, now is the time to increase pressure on the weak spots of the Chinese regime (though a recent report suggests the US government is currently trying to scuttle a human rights lawsuit against a senior Chinese leader fearing a chill in trade relations).
Perhaps China watcher John Pomfret, writing in the Washington Post, gets it right. He argues that although the current protests in China are against the foreign media and Tibet, it wouldn’t take much to switch anger towards the Communist Party. In other words, Chinese nationalism is a constantly evolving entity.
Many Chinese are critical of their government; they simply have nowhere to vent their frustrations. This doesn’t mean they want to embrace Western-style capitalism.
My latest New Matilda column is about the Bin Laden family and its influence in the world:
The Western world still understands little about the motivations behind the September 11, 2001 attacks nearly seven years after the fact. American journalist Steve Coll, a Pulitzer Prize winner, foreign correspondent, Washington Post managing editor and contributor to the New Yorker, details in his acclaimed 2004 book, Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan and Bin Laden, from the Soviet invasion to September 10, 2001, that the events of that fateful September day were both predictable and would probably not have happened without the former assistance of the CIA.
“As the years passed”, he argues, “these radical Islamic networks adopted some of the secret deception-laden tradecraft of the formal intelligence services [Western and Pakistani], methods they sometimes acquired through direct training.”
In his new book, The Bin Ladens: The Story of a Family and its Fortune, Coll continues his thesis about the expansive Bin Laden family and its intimate relationships with the highest echelons of the American political elite. Osama Bin Laden is only one small part of the puzzle, his influence greatly exaggerated by a Western media keen to find a bogeyman for the rise in Islamic fundamentalism.
Sharing a dinner and a laugh with a war criminal (namely George W. Bush.)
Being a war blogger (and getting everything wrong.)
The supposed doyen of the New York Times, Thomas Friedman - a man whose message to the Iraqi people in early 2003 was “suck. on. this” - received a surprise at Brown University:
Not everyone agrees with Friedman’s vision that innovation is the path to climate and energy salvation. Just seconds into his speech, he was interrupted by two environmental activists, who stormed the stage shortly after Friedman stepped up to the microphone, tossing two paper plates loaded with shamrock-colored whipped cream at him. Friedman ducked, and was left with only minor streams of the sugary green goo on his black pants and turtleneck.
I’m sure he can afford the dry-cleaning bill.
My following book review appeared in the Melbourne Age on April 19:
On the fifth anniversary the Iraq War, The Independent’s Patrick Cockburn, the finest Western reporter in Iraq, wrote that the conflict “has been one of the most disastrous wars ever fought by Britain. It has been small but we achieved nothing . . . All governments lie in wartime but American and British propaganda in Iraq over the last five years has been more untruthful than in any conflict since the First World War”. Rupert Murdoch’s Australian praised the “liberation” and hailed the “principled reasons” behind the invasion.
The Guardian’s correspondent Jonathan Steele, a journalist who has spent time in Iraq since 2003, told Democracy Now! in March that, “the war was lost when they decided to have this open-ended occupation of the country without giving any date for withdrawal”. In his compelling new book, Defeat: Why They Lost Iraq, Steele dispenses with analysing how the war could have been fought better, smarter or less violently, a feature of much Western media discussion.
Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter once said that growing anti-war sentiment in America wasn’t due to real opposition to the war, but rather that his country wasn’t “winning”. Steele writes that, “occupations are inherently humiliating” and the Americans, British and Australians were seen as “murderous outsiders”.
The region was rightly wary of “imperial intrusion”, something ignored or unknown by George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard. Steele’s book provides ample reasons why the Middle East craves freedom from Western meddling and has every right to resist its imposition.
Under the banners of “freedom” and “democracy”, the Western powers sought to transform a sanctions-starved nation into a nation run by Republican-indoctrinated hacks. Iraqis were not seen as trustworthy to run their own country. More ominously, Washington and its clients ignored the legitimate grievances held by many in the Arab world towards the West. Steele quotes Mohammed Heikal, an Egyptian journalist/historian and editor of Al-Ahram, who writes about the US-led war to oust Saddam from Kuwait in 1991: “When Westerners accuse Arabs of being over-suspicious, they tend to forget that the West has never shown even-handedness on issues which affect the survival of the Arab nation. History’s influence in creating what the West says is an over-suspicious Arab attitude to Western involvement was much stronger than most in the West realised . . . the crusader, the colonist, the mercenary and the spy have all made their mark on Arab attitudes.”
The invasion of Iraq merely consolidated these fears.
Steele, unlike many Western journalists whose understanding of the war has been through the lens of the American military, engages with real Iraqis and reveals their initial relief at deposing Saddam then anger at being humiliated by racist, foreign troops. He claims thousands of innocent civilians were murdered by American troops and the vast majority of the families were never compensated.
Not unlike in the lawless Palestinian territories illegally occupied by Israel - an environment that taught Washington a great deal about “managing” an indigenous population - disorder and chaos were the chosen method of control.
Steele recounts meeting American-appointed political leaders who talked openly about torturing “terrorists” to tame a growing insurgency. One dictator was being replaced with another equally brutal.
This book is a useful primer of a war that has slipped off the front pages of the Australian media. Steele urges a “negotiated withdrawal” that would hopefully “bring an orderly and relatively casualty-free departure”.
Leading investigative journalist Seymour Hersh recently told an audience in Canada, in views likely to be echoed by Steele: “I don’t think it is bad for a journalist to come back (from covering a war) and say it sucks.”
Antony Loewenstein’s My Israel Question is published by Melbourne University Publishing.
The New York Times features a stunning report in today’s edition, on the Pentagon’s manipulation of information about the “war on terror”:
In the summer of 2005, the Bush administration confronted a fresh wave of criticism over Guantánamo Bay. The detention center had just been branded “the gulag of our times” by Amnesty International, there were new allegations of abuse from United Nations human rights experts and calls were mounting for its closure.
The administration’s communications experts responded swiftly. Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo.
To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.
Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.
An interactive feature explains more.
