From: Mohammed BEN JELLOUN <mohammed.benjelloun-AT-mail.bip.net> Subject: Re: an article by Edward S. Herman Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 21:43:48 +0200 Sorry Aisha, here's the source: www.zmag.org/weluser/htm ----- Original Message ----- From: "Aisha Khan" <ashkha-AT-hotmail.com> To: <postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 5:24 PM Subject: Re: an article by Edward S. Herman > where has it been published? > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Mohammed BEN JELLOUN <mohammed.benjelloun-AT-mail.bip.net> > To: <postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu> > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 3:45 PM > Subject: Fw: an article by Edward S. Herman > > > > > > > "The price is worth it" > > > By Edward S. Herman > > > > > > Try to imagine how the mainstream U.S. media and intellectuals would > > > respond to the disclosure that at an early planning meeting of the > > > terrorists responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center and > > > Pentagon, the question had come up about whether the "collateral damage" > > > of prospectively thousands of dead civilians wouldn't be excessive, but > > > that the matter had been settled with the top leader's response: "we > > > think the price is worth it"? > > > > > > Suppose further that the terrorists' leaders then set out to make their > > > case to their followers, arguing that it was extremely important to show > > > the citizens of the Great Satan that they were not immune to attack on > > > their own land--that they could not continue to bomb others freely and > > > support the violent states of their choice without suffering some > > > retaliation themselves. The terrorists argued that, as the Great Satan > > > has been conducting low- (and often not so low) -intensity wars against > > > the Third World and Arab states for decades, the planned attacks would > > > be both just and legal under international law, justifiable under the UN > > > Charter's grant of the right of self-defense, which He has relied on so > > > often to excuse his own unilateral actions. > > > > > > The leaders argued further that since the symbolic value of showing the > > > Great Satan's vulnerability by attacking the WTC and Pentagon would be > > > greatly enhanced by taking out several thousand civilians, this must be > > > regarded as acceptable collateral damage. Finally, imagine the > > > terrorists' leaders explaining to their followers that for the sake of > > > global peace and security, no less than the welfare of peoples the world > > > over, it is crucial to raise the costs of imperial violence, and help > > > persuade the Great Satan's population to ask Him to terminate His wars. > > > This, the terrorist leaders argued, would in the long run save far more > > > lives than those lost in the bombing of the WTC and Pentagon. > > > > > > Wouldn't the mainstream media and intellectuals be wild with indignation > > > at the inhumanity of the terrorists' coldblooded calculus? Wouldn't they > > > respond in one voice that it is absolutely immoral, evil, and > > > indefensible per se to kill civilians on a massive scale to make a > > > political point? And as to the terrorists' underlying argument that the > > > attacks were justified both as retaliation for the Great Satan's ongoing > > > wars and as part of an effort to curb His imperial violence, wouldn't > > > this be rejected as outlandish? Wouldn't establishment spokespersons > > > rush to claim that despite occasional regrettable mistakes this country > > > has behaved well in international affairs, has intervened abroad only in > > > just causes, and is the victim of terrorism, not a terrorist state or > > > supporter of terrorism? And wouldn't it also be stressed that it is > > > immoral and outrageous to even SPEAK of a "just cause" or any give any > > > kind of legitimation for a terrorist action such as occurred in New York > > > and Washington? That the only question in such a case of violence is > > > "who," not "why"? (These last two sentences are a paraphrase of the > > > indignant argument of a U.S. liberal historian.) And in fact, across the > > > board the U.S. mainstreamers have refused to talk about "why" except for > > > superficial denunciations of an irrational enemy that hates democracy, > > > etc. > > > > > > Turning now to the actual use of the phrase "the price is worth it," we > > > come to U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's reply to Lesley > > > Stahl's question on "60 Minutes" on May 12, 1996: > > > > > > Stahl: "We have heard that a half a million children have died [because > > > of sanctions against Iraq]. I mean that's more children than died in > > > Hiroshima. And--you know, is the price worth it?" > > > > > > Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think > > > the price is worth it." > > > > > > In this case, however, although the numbers dead are mind- boggling--the > > > ratio of dead Iraqi children to deaths in the WTC/Pentagon bombings was > > > better than 80 to 1, using the now obsolete early 1996 number for Iraqi > > > children--the mainstream media and intellectuals have not found > > > Albright's rationalization of this mass killing of any interest > > > whatsoever. The phrase has been only rarely cited in the mainstream, and > > > there has been no indignation or suggestion that the mass killing of > > > children in order to satisfy some policy end was immoral and outrageous. > > > > > > Since the morning hours of Tuesday, September 11, the civilian dead in > > > the WTC/Pentagon terrorist bombings have been the subject of the most > > > intense and detailed and humanizing attention, making the suffering > > > clear and dramatic and feeding in to the sense of outrage. In contrast, > > > the hundreds of thousands of children dead in Iraq are very close to > > > invisible, their suffering and dying are out of sight; and whereas the > > > ratio of Iraqi children killed by sanctions to WTC/Pentagon deaths was > > > better than 80 to 1, the ratio of media space devoted to the Iraqi > > > children and WTC/Pentagon deaths has surely been better than 500 to one > > > in favor of the smaller WTC/Pentagon casualties. Pictures of sufferers > > > and expressions of pain and indignation have been in a similar ratio. > > > The UN workers in Iraq like Dennis Halliday who have resigned in disgust > > > at the effects of the "sanctions of mass destruction" have been given > > > minimal space in the media to inform the public and express their > > > outrage. > > > > > > The "who" in the case of the Iraqi mass deaths is clear-- overwhelmingly > > > the U.S. and British leadership--but the "who" here is irrelevant > > > because of how the "why" is answered. This is done implicitly. Madeleine > > > Albright said that the deaths are worth it because U.S. policy finds > > > this to be so--and with Albright saying this is "why," that settles the > > > matter for the media. Their indignation at the immorality of killing > > > civilians as collateral damage to make a political point ends, because > > > the Iraqi children die by U.S. policy choice--and in this case the media > > > will not even allow the matter to be discussed. The per se > > > unreasonableness of killing civilians as collateral damage is quietly > > > set aside (reminding one of how the Soviet's shooting down of KAL 007 in > > > 1983 was per se barbarian, but the U.S. shooting down of Iranian > > > airliner 655 in 1988 was a "tragic error.") The media focus on whether > > > Saddam Hussein will allow UN inspections to prevent him getting "weapons > > > of mass destruction," not on the mass death of children. (And of course > > > the media regularly fail to note that the United States and Britain had > > > helped Saddam Hussein obtain such weapons in the 1980s, and didn't > > > object to his using them, until he stopped following orders in August > > > 1990.) > > > > > > Because the media make the suffering and death of 500,000 children > > > invisible, the outrage produced by the intense coverage of the > > > WTC/Pentagon bombing victims does not surface on their behalf. The > > > liberal historian who was so indignant at even asking "why" for the > > > WTC-Pentagon bombings and argued that only "who" was pertinent has said > > > nothing about the immorality of killing Iraqis; he is not interested in > > > "who" in this case, partly because he does not have to see dying Iraqi > > > children every day, and partly because his government has answered the > > > "why" to his satisfaction, justifying mass death. Is it not morally > > > chilling, even a bit frightening, that he, and the great mass of his > > > citizen compatriots, can focus with such anguish and indignation on > > > their own 6,000 dead, while ignorant of, or not caring about, or > > > approving his (their) own government's ongoing killing of scores of > > > times as many innocents abroad? > > > > > > This reflects the work of a superb propaganda system. The U.S. > > > government finding the mass death of Iraqi children "worth it," the > > > media push the fate of these "unworthy victims" into the black hole, > > > thereby allowing that policy to be continued without impediment. With > > > the United States itself a victim of terrorism, here the reverse process > > > ensues: with these ultra-worthy victims, the media feature their > > > suffering and deaths intensively and are not interested in root causes, > > > but only in "who" did it; they beat the war drums incessantly and push > > > to the forefront the most regressive forces in the country, making > > > violence and repression the probable outcome of their efforts. But they > > > will sell papers, get larger audiences, support the "national interest," > > > and prove to the rightwing that they are real Americans. > > > > > > > > > > > --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > > > > > --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005