Friday, November 7, 2008

Troubles With Reporting the Truth

The leading headline in today’s NYTimes is: “Accounts Undercut Claims By Georgia on Russia War.” Finally, the obvious truth about the Russia-Georgia war is getting some high-profile media play in America. It’s an embarrassment that it took “newly available accounts by independent military observers” to provide cover for the Times to report what was clearly self-evident over a month ago to anyone who cared to look past the neocon spin.

The bad news is that the State Department issued neocon spin remains alive and well, and gets equal weight in the body of the article. The following excerpt reveals just how far American officials are willing to stray from our core human rights principles to defend one of America’s autocratic clients:

As for its broader shelling of the city [of Tskhinvali], Georgia has told Western diplomats that Ossetians hid weapons in civilian buildings, making them legitimate targets. “The Georgians have been quite clear that they were shelling targets – the mayor’s office, police headquarters – that had been used for military purposes,” said Matthew J. Bryza, a deputy assistant secretary of state and one of Mr. Saakashvili’s vocal supporters in Washington.

Georgia’s account was disputed by Ryan Gist, a former British Army captain who was the senior O.S.C.E. representative in Georgia when the war broke out. “It was clear to me that the attack was completely indiscriminate and disproportionate to any, if indeed there had been any, provocation,” Mr. Gist said. “The attack was clearly, in my mind, an indiscriminate attack on the town, as a town.”…He then soon resigned under unclear circumstances.

America’s respect for human rights on the battlefield has been lacking of late: mistakenly bombing Afghan weddings; indiscriminately sweeping up suspected insurgents through door-to-door home invasions in Iraq; condoning the cluster bomb obliteration of southern Lebanon by Israel. We can now add bombing police stations and mayor’s offices in small Ossetian towns without provocation to the list of activities condoned by America. Activities, let’s keep in mind, that fail to follow the guidelines of the Geneva Convention, which states that combatants "shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and, accordingly, shall direct their operations only against military objectives" (Part IV, Chap. 1, Article 48). Perhaps most dangerous of all, it appears Mr. Gist’s truth-telling got him promptly canned.

While this article is definitely a step in the right direction, it shows us how far we have yet to go in terms of getting the truth out into the mainstream media—on all issues, not just Russia-Georgia. And I doubt Obama’s victory will change much in this regard. Truth-tellers will continue to lose their jobs; reporters will continue to present preposterous spin as credible opinion; and, out of fear of appearing critical of America, the blatant disregard for human rights on the battlefield will continue to be under-discussed and under-analyzed.

2 comments:

Nate said...

Peter, have to ask - do you have something against Georgia?

Point of your post is well taken, but describing Saakhashvili as an "autocratic client" may be a bit much. He's certainly a flawed man in many respects, and has demonstrated disturbingly autocratic tendencies, but is nonetheless surely an improvement over the previous regime by almost any standard. (Clearly I don't buy the Russian line that he's CIA).

Peter said...

Nate,

Please don't mistake my distaste for Shaakashvili for some sort of general dislike of Georgia the country. I am a friend of Georgia. In fact, it is my desire to see a bright future for Georgia that, in part, fuels my dislike of Saakashvili. The country would be much better off with someone else in charge (specifically, someone who would balance Georgia’s orientation between Russia and “the West” rather than attempt to position Georgia in pure opposition to Moscow). And I would argue that Saakashvili is actually not any better than the man he overthrew in the Rose Revolution. Eduard Shevardnadze may have been a Soviet apparatchik, but he was actually quite liberal as far as apparatchik’s go.

More to the point, the direction Saakashvili is taking Georgia is particularly upsetting. In addition to having a flair for lying, he is best understood as a leader who seeks to resurrect and nurture a rather despicable strain of virulent Georgian nationalism that began in 1991 under the first Georgian president, Zviad Gamsakhurdia. A very good recounting of this history can be found here: www.nybooks.com/articles/22011

And as you can see from other pickle posts, my distaste for certain kinds of nationalism is not limited to Georgia; I am equally turned off by American-style hated-filled nationalism as encouraged by Gov. Palin and company.

As for the question of whether or not he is a CIA “client,” you are right to say that “client” is perhaps too strong a term. The Russians are definitely overstating the case when they say he “is CIA.” But it seems clear to me that Shaakashvili has many friends in high places within the U.S. power structure. They could be in the CIA, or more likely in the vice president’s office, or perhaps the State Department, or scattered throughout all of the above. I feel pretty confident in saying that someone somewhere, working for the US government, knew about the planned Georgian attack on South Ossetia and thought it was a good idea. CIA or not doesn’t really matter. He is a close American ally and, for all intents and purposes, “our guy.”

His “autocratic” credentials I think are fairly described as being about on par with Putin’s autocratic credentials. Whether or not the term applies is a matter of semantic debate. In any case, “autocratic” is, I think, closer to the truth than, say, “democratic.”