Target Centermass

Day: May 21, 2005

  • France’s Media Problem

    I’ve posted before that French approval of the European Union’s constitution is in jeopardy, though even a non vote will probably not stop the EU. The issue has spawned a controversy among the French about representation of the pending vote among its public media.

    The debate over the benefits and the drawbacks of the treaty has not only divided France, it has also bitterly split France’s journalists over the nature of their coverage.

    A group of journalists from French state TV and radio are so angered by what they see as one-sided propaganda campaign being broadcast on the airwaves on behalf of the government and the Yes campaign that they have set up an online petition, signed by more than 15,000 people since 1 May.

    They presented it to President Jacques Chirac, the heads of French TV and radio and to the director of the CSA French broadcasting standards authority, Dominique Baudis.

    “This is a grotesque situation,” says Jacques Cotta, a well-known TV correspondent for France 2 who is one of the leaders of the campaign for fair coverage in the lead-up to the referendum.

    “Publicly-owned media in France are broadcasting sheer propaganda to the public, and this absence of any pluralism or any attempt to represent and discuss the point of view of those who want to vote No to the Treaty is profoundly undemocratic”

    He and his colleague Jean-Marc Surcin, a documentary-maker for France 2, agree that French newspapers have been no different, with most overtly supporting the Yes campaign.

    However, it is the role of publicly-funded and publicly-accountable state broadcasters which angers them most.

    “These are broadcasters paid for by the public, and they should be reflecting both sides of the debate fairly,” Jean-Marc Surcin tells me.

    They were granted a lengthy meeting with Mr Baudis, in which the journalists pointed out that according to their figures, French TV and radio had given 71% of its time to the Yes campaigners, and devoted a mere 29% to the No campaign between 1 January and 31 March.

    Opponents have become embittered by the one-sided treatment of the debate by the government and the publicly-owned media.

    France’s best-known Eurosceptic MP, Philippe de Villiers, has warned his supporters that they face what he called an “incredible bludgeoning” by the political and media elite.

    “On the radio, in the newspapers, on the television channels, there is just one single editorial voice: in favour of the Yes,” Mr de Villiers told one rally.

    He brandished a copy of the draft constitution which has been posted to every single household in France, along with an explanatory leaflet. That leaflet, say No campaigners, is deeply biased in favour of the treaty.

    Mr de Villiers suspects a plot. “It’s unreadable, in tiny print, and that’s not an accident. People are going to say, ‘I can’t read this, I’ll just read the helpful synopsis’. It’s a trick worthy of Fidel Castro,” he claims.

    Interestingly, the story turns to how constitution opponents are succeeding to get their message out to some — blogs.

    So instead – with accusations of media bias springing up daily on all sides – the No campaigners are using the web as never before.

    This is the first major campaign in France in which the internet has become a key weapon, with bloggers and internet-users becoming the No campaign’s front-line troops – not just in terms of influencing public opinion but also in rallying the French public to attend its campaign events.

    The Socialist MP Jack Lang – spokesman for the left’s official Yes campaign – has already warned that his side is in danger of losing the “cyber-debate” because of the strength of the No campaign on the web.

    As I’ve pointed out before, a French “no” may mean little eventually to the EU, but all of the intrigue has made for interesting theater. Besides, any setback for Chirac that doesn’t harm us is a good thing.

  • White Farmers Reject Mugabe Plea to Return

    An interesting case of reaping what you sow.

    White farmers evicted by Robert Mugabe’s government have reacted with contempt to an offer that they should return to Zimbabwe to take part in “joint ventures” with those who brutalised them and stole their land.

    Gideon Gono, the governor of the country’s central bank, suggested the idea last Thursday as a possible solution to Zimbabwe’s economic crisis.

    Greg McMurray, a tobacco farmer who fled Zimbabwe in 2001 and is now a grinder at a factory in Wiltshire, said: “These are empty promises. We have had all the assurances before and then they just turn around and change their minds.

    “I had them coming into my garden and threatening my fiancée. Men with a bit of beer in their bellies told me, ‘We’ll come and burn you and your wife and your house’.

    “I would love to go back but the economy’s in ruins. The place is a shambles. So many professional people have left. It would need a new regime before most of us would think seriously about going back.”

    Actually, make it a case of not reaping what you failed to sow.

    During the evictions, some white farmers were murdered and many others were beaten and their families abused. The evictions prompted the collapse of the agriculture sector, the traditional engine of the economy.

    Those who took over the farms had no specialist knowledge – and most farmland now lies uncultivated. The machinery has been stolen, buildings have been plundered and the former workers are starving.

    Eddie Cross, the economics spokesman for the opposition Movement for Democratic Change – which was heavily defeated by the ruling Zanu-PF party in recent parliamentary elections that were widely condemned as being rigged – said that Mr Gono was desperate.

    As long as Mugabe reigns without major reforms, the white farmers are correct in declining their burden. Besides, Kipling was so nineteenth century.

  • Military to Look into Saddam Photos

    Saddam in his underwear. Chemical Ali in a bathrobe. Not appealing mental images, and certainly not pictures that should have reached publication.

    A British tabloid published more revealing photographs of Saddam Hussein in U.S. custody on Saturday, a day after it ran a front-page picture of the former Iraqi leader naked except for his underwear.

    The international Red Cross, which is responsible for monitoring prisoners of war and detainees, said the photographs violated Saddam’s right to privacy. The U.S. military condemned the publication and ordered an investigation of how the pictures were leaked to The Sun.

    Saturday’s pictures included one of Saddam seen through barbed wire wearing a white robe-like garment, and another of Ali Hassan al-Majid, better known as “Chemical Ali,” in a bathrobe and holding a towel.

    […]

    The Sun said the photos were provided by a U.S. military official it did not identify who hoped their release would deal a blow to Iraq’s insurgency. Managing editor Graham Dudman told The Associated Press that the newspaper paid “a small sum” for the photos. He would not elaborate except to say it was more than 500 British pounds, which is about $900.

    The New York Post, which is also owned by Murdoch, also published the photos on Friday.

    The U.S. military in Baghdad said the publication of the photos violated U.S. military guidelines “and possibly Geneva Convention guidelines for the humane treatment of detained individuals.”

    A spokesman, Staff Sgt. Don Dees, said the military would question the troops responsible for Saddam.

    Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said U.S. military officials in Iraq believe the photos are “dated”– perhaps more than one year old, although no specific date has been established.

    “This is something that should not have happened,” Whitman said.

    Whitman’s last sentiment is dead on, not only based on the treatment of prisoners but also for any possible international fallout.

    But what will the fallout be in the tinderbox that is Iraq and the Arab world? Apparently, decidedly mixed.

    The Islamic world yesterday was divided over the Saddam photos — some said the pathetic former dictator got what he deserved, while others thought the pictures were degrading.

    “Saddam Hussein and his regime were bloody and practiced mass killing against the people,” said Hawre Saliee, who, like many fellow Iraqi Kurds, despised the Saddam regime.

    “Whatever happens to Saddam, whether he is photographed naked or washing his clothes, it means nothing to me,” Saliee, 38, said.

    “That’s the least he deserves.”

    Some Iraqis — who gathered in coffee shops in Baghdad and elsewhere to see the photos on satellite TV — were offended to see their jailed former leader in his underwear.

    “This is an insult to show the former president in such a condition,” said Abu Barick, a 45-year-old Baghdad businessman.

    The public reaction appeared less hostile than to the publication of photos of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison — and certainly less violent than to Newsweek’s botched report that the Koran had been desecrated by U.S. prison guards in Cuba.

    The story goes on to look at reaction in the rest of the Arab lands.

    Ahmad Miski of the Arab American Chamber of Commerce said, “I think in places like Egypt and among the Palestinians where he was popular, people might take offense.

    “But in places like Iraq, Kuwait and Syria that suffered from the Ba’athists, I think people will be happy to see him like this,” he added.

    Barick, the Baghdad businessman, said Saddam was ancient history these days — and didn’t deserve this attention by the news media a year and a half after his capture.

    “Do they want to degrade the Iraqi people? Or they want to provoke their feelings?” he added.

    But Miski, of Syrian descent, still said, “I was happy to see him like that.”

    “We are used to seeing photographs of Saddam looking grand and powerful, smoking a big cigar while his people were starving and suffering,” he told The Post.

    “Now it’s time for Saddam to start to suffer. Its time for him to go before a court and face the justice of his people.”

    I find it interesting that issues involving Saddam can be as divisive to the Arabs as they can be here on the home front.

  • Sunnis Create New Political Front

    The very same Iraqi Sunnis who worked to keep their followers from participating in the January elections, thus shortchanging themselves in government representation, are now determined to re-enter Iraq politics.

    Sunni political, religious and tribal leaders came together Saturday to form a new political front intended to represent the disempowered Sunni minority in the process of drafting a new constitution and contesting the next round of elections in Iraq.

    More than 1,000 Sunnis crowded into the Engineering Club in Baghdad to declare the existence of the new front, formed under the auspices of three groups that led the Sunni boycott of January’s elections: the Association of Muslim Scholars, the Iraqi Islamic Party and the Sunni Endowment, another religious body.

    The move, at a time of growing tension between Shiites and Sunnis, gives rise to hope that the disgruntled and factionalized Sunni community may yet be able to find an avenue through which to reach an accommodation with the Shiite-dominated government, despite an increase in sectarian killings that has threatened to plunge the country deeper into violence.

    The move gives rise to hope? Not really, as the group’s initial foray into politics is to immediately place a demand for the resignation of a member of the new government. This doesn’t seem to be a very cooperative political group that is being founded.

    But tensions were evident at the meeting, with Sunni leaders angrily blaming the new Iraqi government for the slayings of a number of Sunni religious leaders in recent days, including a prominent cleric who was allegedly detained by Iraqi police before his body was found dumped nearby earlier this week, showing signs that he had been tortured.

    […]

    The new group called for the resignation of the new interior minister, Bayan Jabr, who has been accused by Sunnis of allowing the Shiite Badr Brigade militia to operate alongside Iraqi security forces.

    Jabr, addressing his first news conference, said only the elected National Assembly has the right to call for his resignation. “People who failed to get one seat in parliament cannot demand such a thing,” he said.

    He did not dispute, however, that his ministry has been cooperating with the Badr Movement, saying he has used them as a source of information on the insurgency. “We have a policy of cooperating with all political movements. We are ready to receive information even from the devil,” he said.

    I cannot speak with any authority about either the role and behavior of the the Badr militias or the actions of the interior minister, but I can at least say that I appreciate the man’s attitude.

    Sunnis attending the conference said they are determined now to join the political process and recover their lost political role by participating in the next election, scheduled for December after a new constitution has been drafted.

    “There will be a wide participation by Sunnis in the next elections for sure, and especially if the new constitution fulfills Iraqis’ demands and aspirations,” said Ahmed Abdul Ghafour al-Samarraei, a leading cleric with the Association of Muslim Scholars. “We have resolved to enter the political field.”

    This is the only part of the story that actually holds forth any hope, though other Sunnis have already made it quite apparent that they missed the boat in January. Greater Sunni participation in December is something that should be expected. Given that, does this group bring more clout to the Sunnis or further fracture them on the political front?

    Promises by the new government to include Sunnis in the political process have so far fallen short of Sunni expectations. Under pressure from the U.S. administration, efforts are under way to include Sunnis in the process of writing a new constitution, which has not yet started despite an August deadline for completing the document.

    One problem, Shiite officials say, is that the Sunnis themselves are divided over who represents them, making it difficult to determine which Sunnis to include in the process.

    Another group formed specifically to negotiate on behalf of Sunnis, the National Dialogue Council, was excluded from the formation of the new Sunni front, calling into question the prospects that the new front will solve the problem.

    “This will make divisions between the Sunnis because we already have the National Dialogue Council, which contains more than 45 parties,” said Sheik Ali al-Mash Hadani, a spokesman for the council. “So what is the purpose of this new group?”