|
Democracy
The 12 March 2007 edition of Time (European edition) offers a profile of Fouad Siniora, Lebanese Prime Minister, entitled “Standing His Ground.” (published on-line 1/3/07 and available at http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1595030,00.html) The Table of Contents calls Lebanon a “fledgling democracy.” The subtitle calls Lebanon a “fragile democracy.” The article states that the West supports Lebanon’s “rare Arab democratic movement.” Bizarre terminology. Since its independence from France in 1943, Lebanon has been defining and re-defining itself as a democracy. In the last 64 years as a self-governing nation, Lebanon has never been, say a monarchy, but instead has been evolving into a country that is working to build itself as an autonomous, representative democracy. The events of the past months are not a struggle against democracy, but a continued struggle for democracy.
The article begins with an image of the Grand Sérail, which houses the Lebanese Government in Beirut. It continues: One evening in December, thousands of protesters from the Shi'ite Muslim group Hizballah and other factions threatened to storm the gates of the Sérail, calling the Western-backed Siniora a traitor for allegedly undermining Hizballah during its war with Israel four months earlier. Only a week before, masked gunmen had assassinated one of Siniora's Cabinet colleagues, Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel. For hours, nobody knew if the mob would overwhelm the guards, enter the building, drag Siniora and his ministers from office — and perhaps ignite a new civil war.
“One evening in December”? Actually, this rally had been announced and anticipated over a month earlier; the people started arriving in Beirut early morning 1 December. By evening, there were not thousands, but hundreds of thousands—the BBC reported police figures of 800,000, and suggested it may have been more. The BBC described them as a “noisy but peaceful crowd.” But they were kept under watch by more than a few guards. As the protesters filled Riad Solh Square, located in front of Siniora's office, the “army and police mounted a large security operation, closing off the prime minister's office and other key buildings with barbed wire and armoured vehicles.” This is hardly the image portrayed by Time. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6197992.stm)
Even the USA Today newspaper reported that “the demonstrators, estimated at between 200,000 and 800,000 by military and police respectively, were peaceful and even festive.” Nonetheless, security was tight: “Hundreds of armed Lebanese Army military police and regular troops, backed by armored vehicles and yards upon yards of barbed wire, kept the demonstrators away from Siniora's office and funnelled them through streets where they could more easily be controlled. In addition, Hezbollah dispatched several thousand, badge-wearing "men of discipline" to help maintain peace and control the crowds.” Again, hardly the image portrayed by Time. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-12-01-lebanon_x.htm)
Time describes the protesters as being from the “Shi'ite Muslim group Hizballah and other factions”—which sounds so much more offensive, even frightening, than saying the protesters represented several different Lebanese political parties. But then, Time had a tone to set. To enhance its theory of a Prime Minister “standing his ground” against those who might “drag [him] and his ministers from office” Time resorted to dramatic fiction.
The drama continues with a gasp: “Only a week before, masked gunmen had assassinated one of Siniora’s Cabinet colleagues, Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel.” Who shot Gemayel? It doesn’t say. The fact is, we don’t know. There has been much speculation, but no evidence found in these murky political waters. Yet Time sandwiches this image of masked gunmen between images of “thousands of protesters” who “threatened to storm the gates” and of a menacing “mob” that might “overwhelm the guards.” Hence the implication of shared responsibility. Blatant innuendo, bold as it may be, has zero credibility.
As for accusing Siniora of undermining Hezbollah during the war, that is another article altogether. Suffice it to say the theme of the protest has been a call for a clean, representative government. Yet Time suggests the protest sought to bring on civil war. It suggests that the protest sought to defeat Siniora in order to gain a victory for the “authoritarian regimes in Syria and Iran.” We could refute this coup d’état theory with numerous statements by at least half a dozen political parties supporting the Opposition Movement. For the sake of keeping this an editorial article rather than a full-length book, however, let statements from two key leaders summarise:
So if Lebanon is just struggling to be Lebanese, why is the US so keen to be at the centre of Lebanese affairs? Why, Iran, of course! The Time article states, “Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatullah Ali Khamenei recently declared that Iran would defeat America in Lebanon.” (“Recently” is actually 15 weeks prior to the Time article publication.)
Proper context: On 14 November 2006, 10 weeks after the Israeli air/sea blockades were lifted in Lebanon, parliamentary speaker Nabih Berri visited Khamenei. The Iranian leader commended the Lebanese parties of Amal and Hezbollah for having stood strong against the Israeli bombardments. The US-backed Israeli Offensive had failed to meet is military/political objectives.
This meeting took place just one week after the US mid-term elections which saw the Democrats take control over both the Senate and the House of Representatives, thereby establishing major opposition to the Bush/Republican party policies. Khamenei stated that Lebanon “will be the defeat point for Israel and America," and that "Today it is (America's) policies in the world and the region that are bound to fail.” Reporting and translations are consistent on context and wording. http://www.lebanonwire.com/0611MLN/06111529AF.asp http://www.leader.ir/langs/EN/index.php?p=news&id=3351 http://www.khamenei.ir/EN/News/detail.jsp?id=20061114A http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/newsdesk.nsf/Lebanon/EF9480DE83254480C2257227003C02CC?OpenDocument http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6134344.stm
Khamenei, then, was saying that the US plan for its American-designed “New Middle East” was not succeeding as the US had planned.
What Time strongly implies, however, is that Iran aimed to topple the American-backed Siniora. This is accomplished with a little word-shuffling and with a little tainting within a paragraph that says Bush hailed the Cedar Revolution (which ushered in Siniora as PM), but that “Iran would defeat America in Lebanon.” And just to underscore the position of Iran as the latest enemy #1, Time quotes Siniora as saying, “You have the desire of the Iranians to establish, I wouldn’t say a satellite state [in Lebanon], but something of that sort.”
Fast forward to the last paragraph of the Time article. Recalling the opening images of the Sérail under siege, it boasts that Siniora has indeed stood his ground: “Despite the obstacles, Siniora is optimistic about Lebanon's future as he stands on a balcony of the Sérail, with nary a protester in sight, looking out over Beirut below, the Mediterranean Sea to the west and Lebanon's snow-capped mountains to the east.”
Very dramatic. Very misleading. “Nary a protester in sight” recalls the article’s earlier assertion that there were “signs that the crisis has cooled” because Nasrallah had “called his people from the streets,” and that Aoun had “become publicly worried about future opposition protests out of apparent concern they could trigger Christian-on Christian fighting.” These statements strongly imply that the Beirut sit-in rally that began 1 December was finished. The problem is that Nasrallah and Aoun were speaking strictly about the General Strike of 23 January, which was met with violence. Rather than see the violence escalate, the Opposition Movement was quick to exercise caution and end the strike. But not the protest.
How Time can justify the phrase “nary a protester in sight” is beyond me. The sit-in has remained in place since 1 December. On 28 February, two days prior to the publication of the Time article on-line, Naharnet news reported “Open-Ended Opposition Sit-in Transforms Beirut into Ghost Town,” complaining that the protest was impacting business in downtown Beirut.
Marking the 100th day of the protest, Reuters reported on 9 March on the mixed impact of the sit-in: “Central Beirut has acquired an eerie air of normality in the midst of the abnormal. The hundreds of tents thrown up by opposition activists are now little more than a slight annoyance for employees who have to park their cars a little further from their jobs. Strangely, even a new cafe opened, though it barely sees any customers. Indeed, the hundreds of opposition activists camped out in tents since December in central Beirut show no sign of ending their round-the-clock vigil which has brought Beirut's financial and commercial hub to a virtual standstill.”
On 20 March Naharnet followed up its previous story with reporting Siniora’s speech at the Grand Sérail to central Beirut business owners, in which Siniora denounced the economic impact of the continuing sit-in and offered possible financial assistance to downtown businesses. Why would he do that if there had been “nary a protester in sight” for the previous month? http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/newsdesk.nsf/0/8989FBD69BA4C112C22572A4002F6675?OpenDocument
Pages could be spent analysing and refuting this Time article. But it is not my goal to set the record straight; the record speaks for itself for anyone willing to take the time to look. What really worries me is when journalistic standards are breeched for political agenda. Time is by no means a professional journal publishing cutting edge exclusives. It is a basic newsstand easy-read that is comfortable on the coffee table in the doctor’s waiting room. Nonetheless, it is also an international publication trusted by millions of readers around the world to keep them up-to-date on world affairs. When that trust is violated, when those readers are manipulated with egregious wrenching of reality in order to sell that political agenda, then we must call their bluff.
The theme of this Time “profile” has fairly little to do with Siniora himself. Its theme is seen in the view of Lebanon as a “keystone in the broader struggle for power and influence across the Middle East.” Siniora’s defeat, says Time, “would shatter a model for other Arab states to follow and dash the Bush Administration's only realistic hope for a Middle East success story.” But if the US is so concerned that there be democracy in the Middle East, then the countries of the Middle East, including Lebanon, should decide for themselves how they govern themselves. That is democracy. No models required.
|
|
Please note: · When we refer to a country we are referring to the government of that country. There will always be a mixture of people in a country: some supporting their government’s positions, some not, some just too overwhelmed by the media to be able to make a sound decision. · We aim to use primary, first-hand information whenever possible; otherwise, we will refer to information consistently reported from reputable sources. Citations are given as needed and we would encourage all readers to view original sources of information. |