Ok. I thought this piece was going to be long (hint: this is a stealth edit), but it isn’t all that bad when I look at it on the page. It’s just one out of many examples from the ongoing famine of truth and feast of slanted opinion that the BBC is harbouring during this Iraq business.
‘Birth Pains of Iraq’s Democracy’: cynicism, mindlessness and obfuscation?
Terribly strong nouns, those- those that I’ve used in my part of the headline. The rest are provided by Martin Asser’s correspondent piece here about Iraq and the chances for its emerging democracy. Asser’s nouns, by the way, create the prospect of a tension between a good result, ‘democracy’, and a difficult passage, ‘birth pains’. [creep, creep- the question mark is mine ]
On reading his article, one can only feel that the title is ironic, since the main point of the article is to question whether the birth will ever take place (‘didn’t we put the mother in danger for no good reason?’ is the rhetorical implication). Of course, with all the hoohah about negativism, we can’t expect that intent to be signalled by a question mark and scare quotes.
The article is topped and tailed with a flourish of selective hyperbole. The Iraqis, we are told, as if Asser looked into their souls, are ‘profoundly sceptical about their American rulers’ promises to restore democracy after decades of totalitarian dictatorship’ (italics mine). They are also, we are informed by an apparently summary quote at the end of the piece, concerned that ‘the presence of the Americans here takes away our dignity’. So it wasn’t Saddam Hussein who took away their dignity, after all, it’s the result of the American invasion.
Yet, of course, Asser appears not to say that when he mentions that ‘Saddam Hussein…plundered the whole country for years’.
Contradictory you’d think? Not the way that Asser puts it.
Asser has set a context for his reference to Saddam by first referring to Ahmed Chalabi and Iyyad Alawi ‘who were brought in by the Americans despite not having constituencies in the country’ (i.m.- what does it mean?). He goes on to say that ‘Mr Chalabi is widely considered a crook’. Now, after setting the scene, we move on to the biggest crook, which is admitted to be Saddam.
What Asser is saying here is that the US has allied itself with people qualitatively no different to Saddam. That seems to me completely wrong and misleading. It carries the implication that Saddam was primarily an embezzler. Since when did Chalabi have a reputation as a torturer or a mass murderer? There is surely a qualitative as well as a desperately understated quantitative difference between them- ‘billions’ is scarcely adequate by itself to express the monies we are talking of in Saddam’s case.
[Ok, I want to return here with a stealthy edit. I want to acknowledge the phrase ‘pales into insignificance’ and make a few points.
1) Asser uses a figure of speech, not a reasoned phrase.
2) A crook is a crook is a crook.
3) Compare the coverage (in numbers of words as well as detail) of Chalabi’s apparent misdoings with Saddam’s, and ask yourself how the article’s tone is affected.
4) Consider the structure I’ve outlined. My conclusion is that Asser sets up totemic phrases to avoid accusations of bias, but his whole thrust knocks those totems to pieces.]
Sadly, we’re back to usual territory: downplay Saddam and flag up what I can only describe as American inadequacies and injustices. In conclusion: the war was wrong and the Yanks are the real bad guys, yahboo!
I would end there if I could; I have given an utterly defensible conclusion but I haven’t yet addressed the main theme of the article, just the punchline. That’s the effect the Beeb has on me I’m afraid.
So, let’s track back to the article’s origins. As time and space is short, I’ll make bullet points as I scan the article chronologically.
· Contradiction
- . Asser says ‘little power has been put into the hands of…the IGC (Iraqi Governing Council)’, and the Iraqis are ‘profoundly sceptical’, but they are also ‘investing considerable hope in the council dealing with their
acute
- problems’ (i.m.). Apparently unaware of the contradiction there, Asser then goes on to list the problems, but why do BBC journalists so rarely emphasise that the unemployed men are the result of undoing a military dictatorship and the stagnation of the real economy under Saddam? There’s a huge story seemingly utterly ignored.
· Suggestiveness. Asser rightly states the aims of the IGC, which include its and the coalition’s dissolution, but later adds ‘It is the first real test of a political system which may have to last for years’ (i.m.). This is exaggeration and crystal ball gazing masquerading as reporting an item of news- the tension over Turkey’s involvement in peacekeeping, which might seem to have the potential to shorten the transition by giving Muslim assistance.
· Repetition. ‘If constitutional issues seem somewhat removed from the day-to-day ones that plague Iraq…’. Aren’t they the things he’s just been talking about in the context of the IGC? Or does he insinuate the Baathist terrorism? Either way it’s piling up the cynical tone unjustifiably.
· Rumour mongering from the hotel bar. ‘Recent Iraqi reports citing IGC sources talk about…’ going the same way as Lebanon? Really?
· Repetition of contradiction .If the IGC has been given so little power, and there are all the problems it is powerless to deal with, how come the Iraqis ‘appear to give the process a chance to succeed’? Are they inherently irrational, a version of the much touted ‘Arab street’? Or is it just Asser? I suppose if you really gave emphasis to how bad Saddam was, and factored in the ‘anything’s better than Saddam’ argument, it might make sense, but if, as Asser seems to intend, it’s combined with the idea that it is the Americans who have taken away Iraqis’ ‘honour and their dignity’, it just doesn’t add up.