The War Against Alternative Information
Rick Sterling is an independent investigative journalist
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 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.”
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.
