This Week: Promoting Democracy -- Or Not

Quote of the Week

Somalia: "The Americans Ignored Their Warnings"

Palestine: "We're Here to Support the Democratic Process"

Iran: "A Sweeping Initiative to Promote Democracy"
Do You Support Democracy? Reverse the Headlines and Find Out

Greetings,

Chico Marx, in the movie Duck Soup, once famously asked "Who are you going to believe? Me or your own eyes?" It's a good question to ask as we read the media, and this issue of Nygaard Notes illustrates why.

As this week's "Quote" of the Week shows, the mass media in this country routinely accept and reinforce the idea that "promoting democracy" is what the U.S. is all about.

Now, remember the two types of propaganda: Overt Propaganda and Deep Propaganda. While Overt Propaganda tends to be specific and conscious, Deep Propaganda is usually general and unconscious. Overt Propaganda is the thing you are supposed to believe. Deep Propaganda is what makes it believable.

Amidst all the news about various conflicts and national liberation struggles and elections and so forth all around the world, the constant, unquestionable idea (that is, the Deep Propaganda) is that the U.S. always and everywhere "promotes democracy." It is so unquestionable that it will be understood—even repeated—even in stories that are reporting on U.S. efforts to subvert democracy. Referring to the unjustified military invasion and occupation of Iraq as an exercise in "building democracy" is an obvious example, but far from the only one.

I know this seems like a really weird idea, and it is. But that's how powerful Deep Propaganda can be: It can prevent us from clearly understanding what is right before our eyes. It happens all the time, and this issue of the Notes is devoted to pointing out just a few examples. Once you know what to look for, you can do it yourself, and you'll have taken several steps on the road to liberation from the propaganda that makes it so difficult to understand why the U.S. and its allies are the targets of so much anger and violence.

A HUGE thank-you to all of you who recently renewed your pledges of support to Nygaard Notes. You all keep the project going! Thanks!

Until next week,

Nygaard

"Quote" of the Week:

This week's "Quote" of the Week is actually a collection of six "Quotes," which I offer as an illustration of how propaganda is transmitted through the media. The propaganda in this case is the idea that it is the policy of the United States is to promote "democracy." In none of the articles from which these illustrations are drawn was there any evidence given to support the idea. It is just assumed to be true, which is one way to recognize Deep Propaganda.

1. January 27: Reporting on the Palestinian elections, the San Francisco Chronicle commented on the Hamas victory's impact on "the administration's strategy of promoting democracy ... in the region."

2. January 28: Also reporting on the Palestinian elections, the Washington Post said that the Bush administration is "an administration promoting democracy in the Middle East."

3. February 16: The Los Angeles Times reported on a Senate hearing in which "members of both parties questioned whether the administration's strategy in the Middle East, built around promoting democracy, had improved the situation."

4. February 27: USA Today quoted without comment Ken Allard, a retired U.S. Army intelligence officer recently back from Iraq, as saying that "the building of democracy has ‘actually been going pretty well'" in that country.

5. March 19: The Washington Post said that "the White House" has been "proposing democracy as a cure-all for the vast frustrations and delusions of al-Qaeda's target audience."

6. June 14: The New York Times reported that "For Mr. Bush, the new Iraqi government is a life preserver, evidence of progress toward the goal of establishing democracy in a hostile environment."

Somalia: "The Americans Ignored Their Warnings"

The nation of Somalia has been without a functioning central government for the past 15 years. In 2002 a group composed of seven nations in the region—Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan and Uganda—convened a Somali Peace and Reconciliation Conference in Kenya. The process undertaken by this group, called IGAD (Intergovernmental Authority on Development) resulted in the election of "an all-inclusive government of national unity for Somalia" in 2004.

This government, however, remained "weak and under- funded" due to the failure to deliver promised international support, resulting in Somalia falling under the control of various militias. The result is that one militia, the Islamic Courts Union militia, last month assumed control of the Somalian capital of Mogadishu.

Did the United States have a role in this failure of the democratic process? Here's the lead paragraph from a Knight Ridder News Service story from June 17th:

"In early March, nine of Mogadishu's most prominent community leaders secretly flew to neighboring Djibouti and pleaded with U.S. military officials there to stop funding the warlords who were devastating the city. Backing the warlords, they said, would end up strengthening an Islamist militia with a shadowy radical wing.

"The Americans ignored their warnings, three of the Somalis at the meeting told Knight Ridder in separate interviews, and the community leaders' fears came to life this month when the Islamic Courts Union militia defeated the warlords and took control of the Somali capital."

The Kenyan newspaper The Standard, put it this way on June 22nd:

"[The] US policy of supporting a section of warlords has been carried out covertly and in brazen defiance of the IGAD framework.

"It is perfectly understandable for the U.S. to seek all ways to ensure the security of its own citizens by pursuing suspected terrorists.... The point, however, is that recent history, most notably the still unraveling war in Iraq, has demonstrated the dangers of unilateralism. But the application of the same gung-ho, poorly planned and single-minded adventurism in Somalia this year by the Bush Administration demonstrates the Americans have learnt little from Iraq."

Palestine: "We're Here to Support the Democratic Process"

On January 22nd, the Washington Post ran a story on their front page headlined, "U.S. Funds Enter Fray In Palestinian Elections; Bush Administration Uses USAID as Invisible Conduit."

Here are some highlights from this article:

"The Bush administration is spending foreign aid money to increase the popularity of the Palestinian Authority on the eve of crucial elections..."

"The approximately $2 million program is being led by a division of the U.S. Agency for International Development [USAID]. But no U.S. government logos appear with the projects or events being undertaken as part of the campaign, which bears no evidence of U.S. involvement and does not fall within the definitions of traditional development work."

"U.S. officials say their low profile is meant to ensure that the Palestinian Authority receives public credit for a collection of small, popular projects and events to be unveiled before Palestinians select their first parliament in a decade.... [Projects include] a street-cleaning campaign, distributing free food and water to Palestinians at border crossings, donating computers to community centers, and sponsoring a national youth soccer tournament."

"The plan's $2 million budget . . . is likely more than what any Palestinian party will have spent by election day. A media consultant for Hamas said the organization would likely spend less than $1 million on its campaign."

"In recent days, Arabic-language papers have been filled with U.S.-funded advertisements announcing the events in the name of the Palestinian Authority..."

The USAID program, according to USAID and State Department officials, is aimed to insure "that there is a constant stream of announcements and public outreach about positive happenings all over Palestinian areas in the critical week before the elections."

James A. Bever, the USAID mission director for the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, was quoted as saying "We are not favoring any particular party. But we do not support parties that are on the terrorism list." He adds that "We are here to support the democratic process."

Iran: "A Sweeping Initiative to Promote Democracy"

Here is the headline from a story in the New York Times (All The News That's Fit To Print!) of February 16th: "Rice Is Seeking $85 Million to Push for Changes in Iran." Here is the second paragraph of the story: "Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, announcing a request for the money at a Senate hearing, said the administration had worked out a way to circumvent American laws barring financial relations with Iran to allow some money to go directly to groups promoting change inside the country."

What was this $85 million to be used for? Well, as the Times politely put it, the money is to be used "to promote political change inside Iran." Or, as the London Financial Times somewhat less politely put it, to "destabilise the Islamic regime from within."

Bear in mind that, despite the fact that you or I or George W. Bush may not like it, the government of Iran is an elected government. The current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was elected in June of 2005 is what was reported as a "landslide." The Times itself reported that "Mr. Ahmadinejad's populist economic policies, his calls for raising wages and lowering prices and his general promise to wipe out systemic corruption seemed to strike a chord in the poorer provinces to the south of Tehran, where he ran strongly. [His opponent] Mr. Rafsanjani, a wealthy merchant and a long-time power broker, came to represent a status quo that voters seemed to reject." The election of Mr. Ahmadinejad, reported the Times, had to do with his "promises of pensions, expanded health insurance, pay raises and low-interest loans."

In summary, then, here's what was reported in the middle of February: The U.S. Secretary of State went to the U.S. Senate to request $85 million to attempt to subvert the democratically-elected government of a sovereign country. But you wouldn't get that impression by reading the major media in this country. Let's look at how this was reported in the United States.

In the Boston Globe, the subversion of democracy was referred to as "a sweeping initiative to promote democracy inside Iran..." In the Los Angeles Times the story was that Ms. Rice "asked Congress on Wednesday to sharply increase spending to promote democracy in Iran..." The Times also reported that "the American Israel Public Affairs Committee praised the administration's move, calling it ‘decisive steps to promote freedom, human rights and democracy in Iran.'"

Do You Support Democracy? Reverse the Headlines and Find Out

I imagine some readers might misinterpret my articles about the United States claim to "support democracy." In the case of Iran, for instance, some people might think that my criticism of U.S. meddling in that nation's elections means that I somehow support Mr. Ahmadinejad being elected president. I don't but, more importantly, that has nothing to do with my argument. The point here is that the U.S. government says that it supports "democracy," and most people understand that "democracy" includes the right of a nation's people to choose their leadership without interference. If that is true, then the point is that the U.S. has no right to interfere in another country's choices of leadership, systems, forms of government, etc.

The question of whether or not the people of the targeted nation would be "better off" with one candidate or another is, first of all, a question that must be answered by those directly affected. Secondly, even if I agree that a different candidate would be "better" for that country than another, that doesn't matter, in principle. And the principle is: People get to choose their own leadership, and people in other countries don't get to "vote," either officially by casting ballots, or unofficially by trying to influence—especially covertly—the campaign or the conditions inside of the country.

There's a tried-and-true method for separating matters of principle from matters of preference or convenience. I call it the "Reversing the Headline Trick." I've talked about it before, and it's very simple. Just take a headline that talks about your own country's actions toward another country. Then, reverse the countries. If you are outraged or offended no matter which way the words go, then it is a matter of principle. If it only offends you one way but not the other, then there is something else going on (and it's not a good "something else").

Need an example? Try this: In the Washington Post of January 22nd ran the headline "U.S. Funds Enter Fray In Palestinian Elections; Bush Administration Uses USAID as Invisible Conduit." If you reverse it, you get "Palestinian Funds Enter Fray In U.S. Elections; Hamas Uses Aid Money as Invisible Conduit." Now, I expect this sounds ridiculous to many people, as the idea that a government as weak as the Palestinian "government" (there is not even a Palestinian state!) could influence the U.S. political process is absurd. But that's not the point.

The point is this: If the Palestinian leadership had the means to influence U.S. elections, and tried to do it secretly, and the news came out in this country, would you be outraged? If you would, and if you are outraged on the basis of principle—that is, if there is simply something wrong with anybody doing anything like that—then you should be outraged when the U.S. does it.

If you are not outraged, then it is worth asking yourself why you are not. Condemnation of behavior by others that we don't condemn in ourselves is known as a double standard, and it often arises as a result of bigotry or feelings of superiority. When individuals base their behavior on such things, it can be called a matter of prejudice or confusion. When entire societies, or powerful groups or institutions within those societies, base their actions on ideas like this, then we're dealing with an "ism," as in racism, colonialism, and imperialism.