BBC delves into Brazilians' roots
By Silvia Salek
BBC Brasil
Neguinho da Beija-Flor's stage-name indicates his skin colour; in Portuguese, Neguinho means Little Black. Montage - Top: Neguinho da Beija Flor, Sandra de Sa, Djavan; Middle: Obina, Milton Nascimento, Ildi Silva; Bottom: Frei David, Seu Jorge, Daiane dos Santos
The BBC project analysed the DNA of nine famous Brazilians
In this year's Rio Carnival competition, he sang a song celebrating Brazil's African roots in a performance that won his samba school the title. But having learned to be proud of his African ancestry, he was shocked to find out that about 67% of his genes are European and only 31% African, according to an estimate based on an analysis of his DNA.
"People will think I'm joking if I tell them this", said the singer, who knew very little about his African ancestors but nothing at all about his European ones.
Neguinho da Beija-Flor was among nine celebrities who were tested for a project, called Afro-Brazilian Roots, by the Brazilian Service of the BBC.
HOW TESTS WERE DONE
Person swabs saliva, sample sent to lab
DNA sequences compared to gene database
40 different markers on DNA sample analysed to obtain rough percentage of genes' origin
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) analysed for maternal line
Y chromosome analysed for paternal ancestors
Brazil has more people with black ancestry than any other nation outside Africa, and its mix of Indians, Africans and Europeans gave rise in the past to the claim that the country was a "racial democracy".
But it is also a country where black people remain socially disadvantaged.
The results of the DNA tests surprised many by showing that skin colour does not necessarily reflect the ancestry of a person's genetic make-up.
Sergio Pena, professor of biochemistry at the Federal University of Belo Horizonte, who led the genetic analysis, explained the apparent contradiction.
"Only a few genes are responsible for someone's skin colour, which is a very poor indication of ancestry. A white person could have more African genes than a black one or vice-versa, especially in a country like Brazil," he said.
Brazilian actress Ildi Silva. Photo by Fernando Torquato.
Actress Ildi Silva says she is seen as neither black nor white
Soap opera actress Ildi Silva found that matches of the Y chromosome in her family are common in northern Europe, and that 71% of her genes are European and 19% African.
"I knew I had a Dutch ancestor from my mother's side, but I didn't know there was an European link in my paternal line as well," she said.
Genealogist Carlos Barata, co-author of the Dictionary of Brazilian Families, notes that as well as the Portuguese, immigrants from many European nations - including France, Ireland, the Netherlands, England and Germany - sought a new home in Brazil.
"The surnames might have disappeared by today's generation, but genetics can bring their contribution back to light," he said.
Controversial quotas
Musician Seu Jorge found that although 85% of his genes are African, the rest are European, confirmation that he is, as he put it "also the son of the guilty ones" - a descendant of the European slave-owners who had children with their African slaves.
"You need to be black to understand what it is like to get on a bus and see people getting off, afraid of you, or calling the police," he said.
"My daughter, who has a privileged education, came home one day telling us that her colleagues at a ballet class didn't want to hold hands with her. She will have to grow with this pain."
Musician Seu Jorge. Photo by Jose Maria Palmieri
Seu Jorge: Proud of his African heritage
The BBC Brasil series has had an impact in Brazil, where the issue of racial quotas is highly controversial.
About 40 universities in the country have set aside places for black students.
Manolo Florentino, head of the Social History Department at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, said the results "show race is a failed concept in Brazil".
Referring to the university quotas, he added: "Policies that 'racialise' this country, following the example of the US, create hate and tension and will make the situation worse."
But for organisations that defend the quota system, genetics should not be used to attack anti-discrimination policies.
They argue that genetics might prove that all Brazilians are very mixed in terms of their racial ancestry, but it is naive to believe that society will consider all equal.
"I've never seen a policeman asking for a genetic ID before stopping someone. In Brazil, discrimination is based on appearance, not on genes," said David dos Santos, a priest who co-ordinates a scheme to prepare underprivileged Afro-Brazilians to go to university, and who was himself tested for the series.
'Face of the future'
Musician Sandra de Sa said that despite its racial tensions, Brazil could teach the world how different races can integrate.
Footballer Obina
Footballer Obina was not aware of his indigenous roots
She was happy though to find out she was about 93% African.
"I can't believe I'm almost 100% African. I usually jokingly say that I can still feel the chains around my ankles," said the singer.
The ancestry of the nine celebrities revealed other surprises.
Obina, a football player in Flamengo, the biggest team in Brazil, had 25% indigenous genes, the highest percentage in the tests.
His Y chromosome was traced back to the Middle East, possibly an indication of a Jewish ancestor among the many escaping persecution in Portugal and Spain some 500 years ago.
"No-one is pure in Brazil. That's why the country has the face of the future," said Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr, co-ordinator of a similar project in the US.
The mixing of races so evident in Brazil will become more prevalent around the world, Professor Gates believes, with people originating from a sole geographical area becoming increasingly rare.
Two readers of bbcbrasil.com chosen from among more than 2,000 who applied to have their DNA tested will have their results published this month.
Their story will focus on how genetics is revealing black ancestors long excluded from family history because of racism.
Labels: BBC, BRAZIL, GENES
Read more...
US State Department-Funded BBC World Service "Jammed" in China
West feigns indignation as China allegedly shuts down US State Dept-funded BBC propaganda.
February 26, 2013 (AltThaiNews-Tony Cartalucci) - Headlines across the Western corporate-media read, "BBC says 'extensive, coordinated efforts' to jam world service frequencies in China" (Fox News), "BBC blocked in China just days after reporting on Chinese hackers" (Washington Post), and "BBC "strongly condemns" China's attempts to jam World Service broadcasts" (Radio Times), before weaving a lofty narrative of a "repressive regime" trying to gag freedom of the press.
In reality,
BBC's World Service is directly funded by the US State Department and is insidious propaganda admittedly designed to politically subvert not only China, but Iran, Russia, and many other nations perceived by Wall Street and London as intolerable competition. In March of 2011, the London Guardian in its report, "BBC World Service to sign funding deal with US state department," stated explicitly:
The BBC World Service is to receive a "significant" sum of money from the US government to help combat the blocking of TV and internet services in countries including Iran and China.
In what the BBC said is the first deal of its kind, an agreement is expected to be signed later this month that will see US state department money – understood to be a low six-figure sum – given to the World Service to invest in developing anti-jamming technology and software.
The funding is also expected to be used to educate people in countries with state censorship in how to circumnavigate the blocking of internet and TV services.
It is understood the US government has decided the reach of the World Service is such that it makes investment worthwhile.
Of course, "blocked" content translates to US State Department and other Western interests' propaganda in the form of the openly US State Department-run "Voice of America," and a myriad of faux-NGO's funded directly by the US government's National Endowment for Democracy (NED). In China particularly, NED has been cultivating a troupe of misfit "activists" and faux-fronts with names ranging from the cartoonish - the "Blind Activist" aka the "Barefoot Lawyer," to the very ironic - "China Labor Watch, Inc," which we must assume "watches" on, as exploited children and adults labor for WalMart and Apple.
RT would also report in 2011, in their report "BBC World Service and US State Department: new partners, new bias?," that:
This would not be the first time the BBC has accepted money from organizations with their own agendas. In 2008, the corporation faced accusations of pro-Europe bias after it was revealed it had taken out US $230 million in loans from the EU. The loans were given by the European Investment Bank, which strives to promote EU policies.
Member of European Parliament Gerard Batten has a long-running beef with the BBC.
"It is institutionally politically biased, certainly in favour of things like the European Union, mass immigration, and a whole other host of ‘politically correct’ ideas that I think it peddles to the public,” he told RT.
Batten says taking this money would expose the hypocrisy at the heart of the BBC.
"The EU bans sponsorship of any news and current affairs TV programs across the EU,” Batten said. “Now it would appear then, that if the US State Department is going to fund BBC that would appear to be in breach of the directive."
Biased, politically motivated enterprises like BBC's World Service in fact represent a breach of journalistic ethics, and not only was Beijing's decision to shut down World Services highly appropriate (if they in fact have done so), but so too would an investigation in both the US and the UK seeking to ascertain why in an economic crisis, money is being spent to sow political subversion overseas for the sake of corporate special interests, when people at home direly need assistance.
The BBC is an organization mired in controversy, and repeatedly exposed as exploiting people's trust in their reputation to push the agenda of well-paying special interests. The coordinated effort by the Western media to spin the BBC's latest confrontation from a well equipped nation-state who has decided to pull the plug, is indicative that the rot that has infected BBC, has spread far and wide across the West indeed.
Labels: BBC, CHINA, NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY, PROPAGANDA, VOA
Read more...
Challenging Western Distortions about Zimbabwe's Land Reform
By Gregory Elich
02-25-11
Mugabe; U.S. Public Enemy Number 1 since land reform launched
For years, Western journalists have castigated Zimbabwe's land reform program. From afar, they pronounced land reform a failure for having brought about the total collapse of agriculture and plunging the nation into chronic food insecurity.
Redistributed land, we are continually told, went to cronies with political connections, while ordinary people were almost entirely excluded from the process. Farmland went to ruin because of the incompetence of the new owners. These were simple messages, drilled into the minds of the Western public through repetition. For Western reporters, certain that they owned the truth, emotion substituted for evidence. Those of a more curious frame of mind, however, were left to wonder what conditions were like in the field, where no reporter bothered to venture.
Now this gaping lacuna has been filled by two recent studies. In a report issued just over a year ago, the African Institute for Agrarian Studies (AIAS) details the results of its extensive field investigations conducted in six districts from 2005 to 2006.(1) The other field study was done in Masvingo Province beginning in 2006 by the Livelihoods after Land Reform project, with multinational assistance, including that of the Great Britain-based Institute of Development Studies (IDS). (2)
What both studies found was that the facts on the ground were at variance with popular Western perceptions. As the IDS study noted, "Those of us exposed regularly to the international, especially British, media found it hard to match what we heard on the TV and radio and read in the newspapers with what we were finding on the ground."
There were a number of misperceptions, which in large part the team felt were due to "a simple lack of solid, field-level data." (3) Although it is true that there has been such a lack, this factor alone does not account for the inaccuracy of Western news reports. The ideological factor is paramount, as always. For that reason, even though concrete information is now available, the tone of Western reports is unlikely to change.
It can never be stressed enough that Zimbabwe inherited a highly unequal land ownership pattern from apartheid Rhodesia. By 2002, 70 percent of the richest farmland still remained in the hands of just 4,500 white commercial farmers, focused mainly on producing crops for export. Meanwhile, one million indigenous families eked out a bare existence, crowded into an arid region of limited suitability for agriculture, known as the 'communal' areas. Fast-track land reform redistributed much of the commercial farmland to some 170,000 families. Whatever its faults in execution, the process has undeniably created a significantly more equitable distribution of land than what prevailed before.
Labels: BBC, GREG ELICH, LAND REFORM, MEDIA
Read more...
COMMENT - The knifes are out for Jacob Zuma. This is what this otherwise inexplicable attention to 'corrective rape of lesbians' is about (of course, always given without statistical backup, just emotions). They tried to go after president Mbeki for his - completely warranted and vindicated - AIDS scepticism. They are trying the same emotional/sexual angle with President Zuma. At the same time, Cynthia Carroll, who oversaw the ousting of Nicky Oppenheimer from De Beers (the most important company in South Africa) has also lost her job. Coincidence, or a wholesale change of scenery? By the way, this article is an editorial, not journalism.
Zuma 'can't change direction of Titanic'
29/10/2012 00:00:00
by James Harding I BBC
After the most damaging months that South Africa's economy has experienced in two decades – with foreign investment and confidence shrinking alarmingly (and perhaps excessively) following the Marikana killings and subsequent industrial unrest – President Jacob Zuma had come to address the world's media at a televised breakfast meeting in Johannesburg.
Zuma walked into a room bristling – if that is possible – with silence and scepticism. Perhaps we should draw a polite curtain over the president's opening remarks.
Zuma has always struggled to deliver written speeches – excusable perhaps given that English is his second language, and his education was curtailed by the fight against apartheid – but the dreary listing of the African National Congress's achievements since 1994 and a handful of bland generalisations about industrial relations hardly seemed calibrated for the occasion.
An opportunity to generate some positive headlines abroad was sleepily squandered.
Then came the more feisty question-and-answer session. But again, rather than selling his vision of the way forward for South Africa, Zuma chose to focus almost exclusively on his trademark tactic – wounded defensiveness.
Those who were criticising South Africa, were simply misunderstanding it: The "mishap of Marikana" was a "surprise to everyone", he said, but it did not represent a "tipping point" for the country - coming close to contradicting his vice-president and rival Kgalema Motlanthe - and it is "wrong to exaggerate" or call the situation "a crisis".
Strikes, he pointed out quite reasonably, were a by-product of democracy.
As for the corruption and infighting within the ruling ANC, Zuma again suggested that outsiders were missing the point.
His administration had done more than any other to fight corruption, and the infighting was a healthy sign of the ANC's democratic processes at work.
In the past, Zuma has urged the public to stop blaming the legacy of apartheid for all of modern South Africa's ills.
But on Monday, he seemed to begin most answers with a history lesson and a plea for his country's special status.
Overall it was an unsurprisingly uninspiring performance – defensive, short on details or any new policy initiatives; the performance, you might say, of a chairman rather than a leader.
But Zuma's central point – that South Africa is not in a state of crisis – has a certain inconvenient truth to it.
I say "inconvenient" truth because, like the old story about the frog in the pot of water that does not notice he is in danger, South Africa seems to have learned to live with its problems – an unwieldy political alliance between the ANC, trade unions and the Communist Party, massive corruption, a collapsing education system, inequality, a shrinking tax base and expanding welfare system and some of the most protective labour laws in the world.
[Massive corruption - does James Harding have anything to back that up? And a 'collapsing education system' - from where, the great educational past that was 'Bantu Education'? The writer is stretching it, and I want to know why. - MrK]
And so, instead of being confronted with a sudden crisis that prompts real change, South Africa appears to be drifting – sustained by an expanding middle class and buoyant local economy – while the water in the pot keeps getting steadily hotter.
I am not a pessimist. South Africa remains an extraordinary country with huge mineral reserves, a history of proving the sceptics wrong, plenty of achievements to boast of, and the potential to transform itself.
But it is hard to live here and not feel the keen absence of a charismatic leader – someone to pull the country behind him, or her.
Perhaps it is worth ending with what sounded like a presidential Freudian slip, as Zuma was chatting to journalists after his main remarks.
South Africa's government was an unwieldy ship to steer, he suggested, "You cannot change direction overnight. It's like the Titanic."
Labels: BBC, JACOB ZUMA
Read more...
President speaks on Mau Mau victory
Saturday, 13 October 2012 00:00
Takunda Maodza Senior Reporter
Africa rejoices in the victory of the Mau Mau victims of British colonial brutalities after a London Court gave them the green light to sue for damages, President Mugabe said yesterday.
Last week, the High Court in London allowed three elderly Kenyans, Wambuga Wa Nyingi, Jane Muthoni Mara and Paulo Muoka Nzili, to pursue damages for torture during the Mau Mau rebellion against British rule.
Addressing the Zanu-PF 90th Ordinary session of the Central Committee in Harare, President Mugabe said Zanu-PF should not view the Mau Mau case as a matter far removed from the revolutionary party.
“I want to acknowledge a quiet yet significant victory which Africa has won against British colonialism. As some of you may be aware, Mau Mau victims of the British colonial savagery and brutalities in Kenya last week won the right to sue the British government for atonement of the suffering they underwent as they resisted British colonialism which, in comparable circumstances, involved theft of huge swathes of land, a good part of which remain in the hands of absentee landlords well ensconced in Britain and larger Europe,” President Mugabe said.
He added: “We who also bear the scars of British colonial atrocities can never view this test case as a matter far away from us as a matter for Kenyans alone. We see ourselves in those resilient Mau Mau fighters; we see in their horrid injuries our very own un-repaid injuries and injustices from that past of white savagery.”
President Mugabe said the Mau case was a lesson not just for Africa but for victims of slavery, colonialism and other de-humanising forms of imperialism suffered by the Third World.
“Time may have come when the abused notion of ‘responsibility to protect’ may make better sense when revisited so we incorporate within it, its long ignored correlative of ‘responsibility to account’ for past offences and horrible Nazi-like human rights abuses of indigenous peoples,” he said.
He said Africa must not allow a situation where history was recalled selectively, sparing the so-called mighty.
“We know to be wrong and guilty of heinous crimes against humanity both in the past and present. We should never allow a world order where might buys right, while right succumbs to wrong,” President Mugabe said.
The President and Zanu-PF First Secretary also saluted Hugo Chavez’s victory in Venezuelan presidential elections describing it as sweet victory against forces of global imperialism.
President Chavez, a socialist, was re-elected into office on Sunday after defeating Henrique Capriles.
“I recall and recognise last weekend’s loud and resounding defeat of global imperialism by the progressive people of Venezuela, led by their revolutionary leader Hugo Chavez. It was sweet victory against forces of global reaction and imperialism, indeed, a victory made sweeter by defeating the false hopes imperialism had concocted for itself even against the outward fact of the hugely popular Bolivarian revolution,” President Mugabe said.
He said President Chavez’s victory was a victory for the ordinary Venezuelan and the Third World.
“The people won, the poor won and as a revolutionary party, Zanu-PF, shares in that victory, indeed regards it as its own, albeit vicariously.
“Any gain for forces of global progress, wherever such may be registered, is another great stride for the larger half of mankind, a gain for the broad masses of the Third World for so long trampled upon by imperialism,” President Mugabe said.
He said imperialism continued to make the world more dangerous daily.
“It continues to corrupt institutions of democracy in our world, principally the ballot box, in order to attack genuine national leaderships in order to undermine national sovereignties and of course to subvert the very notion of democracy in whose name it pitches its claim to superiority,” President Mugabe said.
He said so heartless were the imperialist forces that they not only interfered in other countries’ internal affairs but went to the extent of invading them.
“We need to study the wiles which imperialism employed in Venezuela in a bid to defeat the will of the people.
“The blatant aggression of imperialism in North Africa and the Middle East, its continuing naked provocations in the Far East, and, as we saw not too long ago, its attempts even to destabilise a powerful state like Russia, clearly show a system experiencing a crisis, but one which will not hesitate to make wars abroad in order to stave off its own problems and challenges,” President Mugabe said.
He said the world has seen the limitations of neo-liberalism, an ideology of later-day imperialism.
“Hence when such alternatives, presenting fairer and more representative systems of Government triumph, we need to celebrate.
“We must boldly express solidarity with kindred parties and movements worldwide, so we continue to build a broad front against this new and deadly strain of resource-hunting imperialism,” he said.
“We have seen the enemy make repeated, rapacious attacks to suffocate our country using even those we are meant to build the country in partnership with. It does not work, it cannot work!” he said.
Labels: BBC, COLONIALISM, KENYA
Read more...
Ncube gives BBC reporter a HARDtime
18/09/2012 00:00:00
by Mthulisi Mathuthu
ONE reason why an African leader is much more likely going to give an interview to Western journalists than to local ones is that the former will always play into the leader’s hands by asking precisely the questions which suspiciously come out as though they were crafted by some mandarin or a chief government spook with the central aim of getting information that would help them shape government foreign policy.
Given that Western foreign policy is inherently incapable of moral uprightness, meaning that the journalist’s questions will naturally be prejudiced, that always comes in handy for the African leaders.
Perhaps nowhere is this apparent than in the September 18 BBC HARDtalk programme where Zeinabi Badawi’s questions to the MDC leader Welshman Ncube were so partisan that they brazenly exhibited the prejudices and fantasies of the Western mandarins on behalf of Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the other MDC faction.
Listening through the interview, one can’t help feeling that the central aim of the questioning was to project Ncube as the main problem and cause of the opposition’s failure to wrest power from Robert Mugabe. Indeed, the interviewee said she was aware of the details of the 2005 split but was, interestingly, not going to go into details about that. In the end it was as if the MDC split not because of Tsvangirai’s refusal to accede to internal ‘democratic outcomes’ but because Welshman Ncube was himself a problem.
Badawi asks Ncube to justify his opinion about MDC-T not being as democratic as it claims to be. In an attempt to load the dice against Ncube, Badawi rests her line of questioning on the opinions of people who she calls ‘various international figures’ whom she collectively refers to as the ‘international community’; and whose views should, therefore, translate to ‘international opinion’.
These people are US diplomat and former Ambassador to Zimbabwe, Christopher Dell, who, according to the WikiLeaks, said Ncube was a ‘divisive’ figure who should be removed from the political stage; and Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, who likened Tsvangirai to Nelson Mandela and Aung San Suu Kyi – both Nobel Peace Prize winners. Dell, the interviewee says, can be relied on more because he spent ‘many years’ in Zimbabwe.
In reminding Ncube of Dell’s opinion, Badawi’s body language betrays her as she comes out as an excited junior detective putting her killer question to a suspect. In bringing in all these things together, the idea is to present Ncube as indeed a ‘divisive’ person going against the supposedly credible people of international stature like Mandela.
To a viewer who is not familiar with the goings on in Zimbabwe, anybody whose view is against that of a Mandela equivalent must surely be crazy and worth ‘removing’ from the political stage.
The same applies with citing of the French Knighthood as an indicator to Tsvangirai’s moral uprightness and credibility – when we know all too well that that award has previously been awarded to savages.
Moreover, Dell cannot be one to rely on because his confident predictions have been previously disastrous. For example, prior to his departure he predicted a total economic implosion within a space of a few months in Zimbabwe, and that never came to pass.
At the end of the day, the HARDtalk interview comes out as one which was designed to lead Ncube into giving answers that would in turn confirm him as a Zanu PF agent. One such question was the last one where he is asked if he would contest against Mugabe in the event of Tsvangirai staging another boycott. If he had said yes, that would have, at least in the scheme of the people who planned the interview, confirmed him as a Zanu PF lackey. Ncube, as before, saw through the trick and survived.
One can’t help thinking that there is indeed fear that Ncube’s whirlwind campaign trail across the country is paying dividends and in a way that stands to reverse the fortunes of both the MDC-T and Zanu PF considerably. Spanners must, therefore, be thrown in his works. The idea, so it seems, is to indeed ‘remove Ncube from the political stage’ by all means necessary.
Strangely Dell, Zedawi and others like them seem to be oblivious to one vivid question: why is it that Tsvangirai, whom Mugabe so much resents to the extent that he has even tried to assassinate him, is vocally in disagreement with Mugabe in almost everything but is silently but willingly in agreement with him on Welshman Ncube’s isolation? What is it which Ncube represents that makes these two enemies forget their differences?
It will be helpful if Dell and his think-a-likes were to keep one thing in mind: it is easy for diplomats from powerful nations to activate the ancient habit of perpetuating prejudices of a particular section of a country they operate in knowing that they can always blame the victims of their actions. And yet it is true that policies grounded on narrow interests will often yield the opposite of what they are meant to achieve. Mugabe’s 32 year rule provides a clear and ongoing example.
Last but not least it would be helpful if journalists like Zedawi try and keep away from the habit of taking questions from mandarins because by so doing a journalist runs the risk of not just sounding shallow but of shunning basic research to the extent of getting many things wrong and thereby giving themselves a hard time such as happened in her interview with Ncube. One example in this case is the fact that Ncube is presented as the secretary general of the MDC, when he is actually the President.
Mthulisi Mathuthu is a New Zimbabwe.com blogger. E-mail him: thuthuma@yahoo.com
Labels: BBC, HARDTALK, WELSHMAN NCUBE
Read more...
COMMENT - To be fair, Zeinab Badawi also gave Morgan Tsvangirai a hard time, when no one else would. Stephen Sackur interviewed Roy Bennett and Ben Freeth, and they looked like they were ready to beat him up at several times in the interview - not used to being opposed. But then, the show is called Hard Talk. (With part of Ambassador Dell's wikileaks cable included below.) The BBC
Hard Talk page is here.
Transcript: Ncube's BBC HARDtalk interview
18/09/2012 00:00:00
by New Zimbabwe.com
MDC leader and Industry Minister Welshman Ncube was a guest on the BBC’s HARDtalk programme aired on Tuesday [UK residents watch HERE]. This is the full transcript of his interview with HARDtalk host Zeinab Badawi:
ZEINAB BADAWI (ZB): Have opposition politicians in Zimbabwe learnt the lessons of the violence and disputed elections of 2008 in which Robert Mugabe and his party Zanu PF outmanoeuvred the Movement for Democratic Change and held on to power?
The MDC has since been in an uneasy power sharing government in which its main leader Morgan Tsvangirai is Prime Minister, but a breakaway MDC faction led by the Industry and Commerce Minister Welshman Ncube is splintering the opposition ahead of elections due by next June.
My guest today on HARDtalk is Welshman Ncube. Shouldn’t the opposition be united to better oppose Zanu PF?
Welshman Ncube welcome to HARDtalk.
WELSHMAN NCUBE (WN): Thank you.
ZB: It’s a general rule in politics isn’t it not just in Zimbabwe: weaken the opposition by splitting it. That’s what you’ve done.
WN: Well, it is of course correct that if the parties that are opposed to Zanu PF it would be that much easier to win the elections than when we are all fighting from our different corners. But there are things which are fundamental and matters of principle, matters of policy that divide us and have made that very, very difficult.
ZB: And is that much more important in your view to you than forming a credible opposition to Zanu PF?
WN: Well, what is important is that when we oppose Zanu PF and when we seek to remove Zanu PF we must all be clear and united in that the alternative government we want to establish will in fact, not just in deeds, will in fact be different from the Zanu PF government either by reference to corruption, by reference to mismanagement, by reference to non-violence – all of those things.
So when the things which divide us make some of us doubt that that government will be different from Zanu PF, that is why it is so important that we must be opposed to Zanu PF in both words and in deeds. There is no point in removing Zanu PF only to replace it with exactly the same entity.
ZB: Are you equating Morgan Tsvangirai, the Prime Minister, with President Robert Mugabe who has been in power for 32 years?
WN: I’m not equating anyone. I’m simply saying those things that divide us go to the heart of our opposition to Zanu PF. When we say we must be non-violent we must mean it and we must live it. So when our colleagues practise violence against others and also against themselves we say, eh [interrupted].
ZB: So which colleagues are you talking about here because you are being a little bit indirect. Just spell it out for us. Are you accusing the MDC faction led by Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai of waging some kind of campaign against your faction?
WN: No. I’m saying the things which divide us, the things which divided us at the time of the split are essentially to do with the things I’m talking about. If we begin to act violently against each other and against ourselves; if we begin to defy collective decisions that we would have made; if during for instance the currency of the inclusive government we have local government structures which act as corruptly as Zanu PF has done over the last 32 years, those are the things which divide us, and they are genuine differences.
ZB: Let me just fill people in of course that the MDC split back in 2005 when Morgan Tsvangirai didn’t want to contest the [senate] elections. I’m not going to go into the ins and outs of it but there was a breakaway faction led by Arthur Mutambara but you now lead that breakaway faction.
I want to ask you very, very clearly, and I would like a clear answer, should the MDC not just remain united under the Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai who after all is highly acclaimed in international circles. Very simple question, what’s you answer?
WN: Well, the answer is simple. The things that divide us now make it impossible for us to work together.
ZB: What have you got against Morgan Tsvangirai?
WN: Absolutely nothing against the person of Morgan Tsvangirai. Our differences are about our political behaviours and the things we do as politicians. I keep underlining, it is on record that our colleagues in the MDC-T often practise violence; it is on record that Morgan Tsvangirai himself has reversed collectively made decisions and it is also on record that the local government structures that they control have acted as corruptly if not more corruptly than the Zanu PF ones. Those are the things which divide us.
ZB: You refer to MDC-T which stands for the faction led by MDC Morgan Tsvangirai. But what you say is clearly at odds with what the international community believes. For example the French government has this summer conferred on Morgan Tsvangirai the Legion of Honour, the highest order it can because it says he upholds universal aspirations, morals and the spirit of progress.
The Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has said he is like Nelson Mandela, like Aung San Suu Kyi– a remarkable figure of our times, she has said.
The former American ambassador in Zimbabwe Christopher Dell has described Morgan Tsvangirai as brave, committed, by and large a democrat. He is also the only player on the scene right now with real star quality and the ability to rally the masses. I reel off all that, minister, because it is at odds with what you say.
This is what the leaving US ambassador to Zimbabwe, Christopher Dell, actually said about Morgan Tsvangirai in the Wikileaks Cables (Cable ID: 07HARARE638):
WHAT OF THE OPPOSITION?
10. (C) Zimbabwe's opposition is far from ideal and I leave convinced that had we had different partners we could have achieved more already. But you have to play the hand you're dealt. With that in mind, the current leadership has little executive experience and will require massive hand holding and assistance should they ever come to power.
11. (C) Morgan Tsvangarai is a brave, committed man and, by and large, a democrat. He is also the only player on the scene right now with real star quality and the ability to rally the masses. But Tsvangarai is also a flawed figure, not readily open to advice, indecisive and with questionable judgment in selecting those around him. He is the indispensable element for opposition success, but possibly an albatross around their necks once in power. In short, he is a kind of Lech Walesa character: Zimbabwe needs him, but should not rely on his executive abilities to lead the country's recovery. Arthur Mutambara is young and ambitious, attracted to radical, anti-western rhetoric and smart as a whip. But, in many respects he's a light-weight who has spent too much time reading U.S. campaign messaging manuals and too little thinking about the real issues. Welshman Ncube has proven to be a deeply divisive and destructive player in the opposition ranks and the sooner he is pushed off the stage, the better. But he is useful to many, including the regime and South Africa, so is probably a cross to be borne for some time yet. The prospects for healing the rift within the MDC seem dim, which is a totally unnecessary self-inflicted wound on their part this time. With few exceptions ' Tendayi Biti, Nelson Chamisa ' the talent is thin below the top ranks.
WN: Well, I’m a Zimbabwean, I live in Zimbabwe. I worked within the united MDC, I worked outside the united MDC and I can tell you the things on which we differ are fundamental, they go to the very heart of the struggle against Zanu PF. I repeat, we don’t want to replace Zanu PF in name, and not also in terms of the things it does.
ZB: You’ve made that point, but just address the fact that there is lavish praise heaped upon Morgan Tsvangirai by various international figures and it doesn’t really... it’s not consistent with the kind of picture you are now portraying of the MDC faction led by Morgan Tsvangirai. So just explain that to us.
WN: All I can say is that those who might be somewhere in Australia, those who might be in Paris, in Washington are entitled to have their opinions about any of the leaders in Zimbabwe, just as much as we are entitled as Zimbabweans to have our own opinions about ourselves and our leaders. And respectfully [interrupted].
ZB: Christopher Dell, the former American ambassador, highly regarded, spent many years in Zimbabwe and what I quoted was what he said in WikiLeaks which were revealed in 2010. But you know what he said about you, you know what he said about you?
WN: I’ve read about what he said about me, but the point [interrupted].
ZB: Let me remind you, let me remind you, well let me remind you.
WN: Go ahead.
ZB: He described you, if I may, as highly divisive and says you should be taken off the political stage.
WN: Yes, and what’s the question around that?
ZB: So what do you answer to that quote ‘highly divisive and should be taken off the political stage’?
WN: Well, again that is Dell’s opinion, as democrats we respect it but we disagree with it. I don’t know what it means when an ambassador of one of the biggest democracies in the world speaks of taking leaders off the political stage, I don’t know what that’s supposed to mean. And I think it is unfortunate and it cannot be consistent with the values and principles the United States wants to defend around the world.
ZB: When we look at the Global Political Agreement, the GPA, which came into force after those elections in 2008, disputed, and we saw what the French called “cohabitation” whereby the MDC joined the government under President Robert Mugabe. But you are stating quite clearly that that has been a failure, not only because of the difficulties with Robert Mugabe, but within the MDC itself, it’s been a failure.
WN: Well, the inclusive government has not been a total failure, but it could have done better. In terms of political reforms clearly, clearly we have failed. We have not done the things that we should have done by now, we should have created the necessary conditions for free and fair elections, that has not happened. There are many parts of the GPA on media reforms, on provincial governors that we have not implemented.
However, in terms of where Zimbabwe was in 2008 or beginning of 2009 in economic terms we have made a lot of progress. We have a country which was virtually on the verge of collapse if not completely collapsed, that economy we have managed to resuscitate it, it’s now working. Yes it could do better, and yes people are still poor but you don’t have an economy which is basically on its knees anymore, it’s an economy which its way to recovery. Whether or not it recovers now depends on what happens at the next election.
ZB: Alright. I will just [inaudible] economy since you have raised it. You have a $400 million budget deficit, and growth has now been downgraded from more than 9 percent, which was admittedly very high, down to 5.6 percent. Even though progress has been made, and let’s face it that was from a very low base, things are going backwards now.
WN: Yes of course some of the gains that we have made over the last three years are threatened now with reversal, in particular as we move towards an election and as we begin to grandstand around election rhetoric.
In terms of the economy as minister of industry for instance, industry recovered from capacity utilisation of 10 percent when we came in to 57 percent by the end of last year. It sort of plateaued, it’s not going anywhere now largely because of our failure to stabilise the political environment so as to bring in confidence to have access to lines of credit. That has not happened.
So we are beginning to see reversal yes, but we need to move as quickly as we can... to continue with the recovery which we have started.
ZB: It’s not just political instability because people don’t know when the elections are going to be happening and so on but it’s also because of the so-called indigenisation policy that came into effect in Zimbabwe in 2011 whereby foreign companies have got to hand over 51 percent of their controlling share to local companies and that has scared a lot of foreign investors, frankly?
WN: Well, that’s absolutely true. As minister responsible for trade I spend a lot of my time talking to investors, talking to business leaders in and outside Zimbabwe and there is no doubt that the elephant in the living room is our indigenisation laws. Clearly, clearly a lot of investors are unhappy with them and find it difficult to come and invest in Zimbabwe.
Whereas we all agree that we must do some form of empowerment, the manner in which we are doing it and the thresholds that we have set are clearly unrealistic and unreasonable in our circumstances.
ZB: So when you talk about some form of empowerment the idea is that you indigenise these interests so that the whole Zimbabwean population can benefit from it. What’s the evidence then that any benefits will trickle down to the ordinary Zimbabwean, because there isn’t plenty of that, is there? Not much evidence of that.
WN: I personally don’t like the word indigenisation because I don’t think it has any precise meaning. I prefer the term empowerment. Empowerment is broader and perhaps more accurate in terms of what some of us would want to achieve. If we are talking about empowerment, we should be talking about encouraging investment so that we can create jobs and employment for people, we can create the necessary business environment for indigenous Zimbabweans to form their own businesses to compete with others. Empowerment must not necessarily mean taking over someone else’s business.
ZB: But have you achieved that? You are the minister for commerce and industry, trade and so on and you look at Zimbabwe and the state of the people, one and half million people on the verge of starvation according to the United Nations World Food Programme, or will need food assistance rather.
WN: Zimbabwe is one of the richest countries in Africa, its mineral wealth is second to none, its climate, weather conditions, its land is also among the best in the world in terms of what we can do to our agriculture. If we can fix our politics, and fix our economic policies we will be able to deliver to our people by actually delivering on a stronger economy, on strong and successful businesses. That is the only way to do it.
ZB: Sure, but if you look at the realities the Minister of Finance Tendai Biti said this year that for instance when he looks at the Marange diamond field he was expecting something like US$600 million to go into the state coffers, from the Marange diamond fields he has only received US$19 million. He said there were 230,000 [Editor’s note: Biti’s figure was 75,000 ‘ghost workers’, the figure stated is for entire civil service] fictitious government employees who somehow are drawing salaries and that 10,000 new jobs have been created in the past few weeks or so in government.
That’s the reality of Zimbabwe and yet you talk about ‘oh a new business climate’ and that kind of thing, that’s not happening is it?
WN: All of what you have just summarised and attributed to the Finance Minister is absolutely correct. If you look at the diamond wealth, the diamonds we are mining, if we were actually administering them and managing them properly we should be getting the sort of money that the Minister of Finance has been mentioning. We are not doing it, that’s why at the beginning we said the inclusive government has not functioned as we expected to do, there is a complete lack of transparency for instance around Marange diamonds.
So all of those things cannot be fixed, in my opinion, unless and until we have free and fair elections and we have a government which is properly elected by people.
ZB: So you just accepted or you just at least stated that you basically have no power?
WN: Well, it is correct that’s why we keep saying there is a parallel government in many respects; that is why the Minister of Finance says there is no authority over Marange and there is no-one who is accountable to him when in fact they are supposed to be accountable to him.
ZB: So do you have power? Do you have any power as minister of commerce and industry to do what you would like to do to encourage investment, empowerment and all that kind of thing? Do you have power?
WN: Yes and no. We have the power and authority to do those things that are within our power, within our mandate as a ministry where we do not need the cooperation of anyone else; we have the power to do those things. But there are things as the ministry of industry where we would require the cooperation of other arms of government and other ministries and clearly therefore we would not have the power.
ZB: OK, you’re talking about those ministries controlled by Zanu PF perhaps. But let me ask you, you talk about the elections, free and fair elections are vital to bring some kind of stability. But these elections, no date, they should be held by June but you’re all squabbling about what should be in the draft constitution.
WN: Correct, we should have the elections, or at least parliament will stand automatically dissolved on June 29 next year. The elections must then be held no later than the end of October next year as an outer limit which is permissible under the current constitution.
Clearly, we had expected to be able to have done the constitution earlier than now, we have not done so [because] there are new disagreements around the constitution and we hope we can overcome those differences with the assistance of SADC [interrupted].
ZB: OK, just spell those out. You are talking there about the Southern African Development Cooperation who are trying to mediate in all this. But just spell out for us, what are the disagreements? In essence it looks like the MDC are concerned about powers in the constitution for the president being enshrined in the new constitution, and also control over the armed forces and so on. But you’ve also got disagreements about same sex marriage, dual citizenship, that kind of thing. So what are the stumbling blocks?
WN: Let me start by saying that firstly, there actually is an agreement. The structures that we had set, what is called the COPAC committee, the constitutional parliamentary committee, has actually agreed on a draft constitution signed by representatives of all the three parties in the inclusive government and formally handed over to the Speaker of Parliament by the co-chairpersons of that parliamentary committee. So there is an agreement, we must underline that.
What is now happening is an attempt by Zanu PF to renege from that agreement by rewriting the agreed draft to include all those things that you have mentioned. For instance, they are attempting to turn the Bill of Rights into what you may call a declaration of non-rights when in fact it’s supposed to be a declaration of rights; they are going back to try and recreate an imperial presidency; they are re-introducing certain clauses that will undermine the judiciary and so forth and so on. Altogether, there are over 200 amendments that they have attempted to make to an already agreed draft constitution.
ZB: Alright, so there is a deadlock. Is it worth delaying these elections that you yourself says Zimbabwe so badly needs because of disagreements or inability to put the draft constitution to a referendum?
WN: Ye sit is worth delaying the elections because there is no point in rushing to an election whose outcome will be disputed and will create another political deadlock which will be with us for a long time. It is better to delay the election whether it’s by five months, six months and then do the elections properly under a constitution which will guarantee our liberties, our freedoms; which will curtail executive power in a manner which protects the citizens.
ZB: But you know Lovemore Madhuku who runs an NGO, the National Constitutional Assembly – very broad based there is lots of labour, student, women’s groups, churches, human rights organisations – says even if there were a new constitution agreed, he says there is no basis to support this document because it’s being supported by politicians including you obviously. So where are the people in all this?
WN: Well, Lovemore, Dr Madhuku or Professor Madhuku, is entitled to his opinion but some of us respectfully disagree [interrupted].
ZB: Well it’s not just his as I said, he represents quite a wide body of opinion.
WN: I think the three political parties in the inclusive government represent a wider body of political opinion in Zimbabwe than any single civil society organisation. But the point I want to make is that the constitution has to have political leadership, there is no constitution anywhere in the world that was ever made by civil society without the political structures, without the elected people participating. I know not, I’m a constitutional lawyer myself.
ZB: I want to ask you something very important which is, let’s just assume that elections happen and you overcome these problems. One Major General Trust Mugoba was quoted in May 2012 in AllAfrica magazine saying the army would not allow the MDC to take over power if it wins an election because it doesn’t represent the ideology of liberation struggle. So whatever happens you have opposition from the army clearly, what do you say to that?
WN: I think of course it is true that the higher levels, the higher echelons of the military have made the statements which capture what you’ve just said. But it is also true that the rank and file in the military does not necessarily come from that school of thought.
But what is important in our case is that both the two formations of the MDC have raised this issue squarely with the facilitator, with SADC, to say there is no point in having an election unless the roadmap to that election includes guarantees and undertakings from the military, and with SADC guarantees as well, that the military will accept the verdict of the people and that they must accept in advance of an election that the sovereignty of Zimbabwe lies in the people and not in the military.
ZB: Very quickly, a few seconds, if Morgan Tsvangirai says he will not contest elections if Robert Mugabe was the candidate for Zanu PF would you? In a word?
WN: Well, look, we cannot determine for other parties who their candidates are. It is up to Zanu PF to field its candidate, all we ask of that candidate is to be bound by the democratic traditions and to accept the will of the people and to refrain from violence.
ZB: Minister Welshman Ncube, thank you very much indeed for coming on HARDtalk.
WN: Thank you.
[Transcript by New Zimbabwe.com]
Labels: BBC, HARDTALK, MDC, MDC FACTIONS, WELSHMAN NCUBE
Read more...
COMMENT - Also
see the transcript here. For the record, Zenab Badawi gave Morgan Tsvangirai a hard time too, at a time when no one seems to even allow criticism of the MDC at all. Hard Talk's Stephen Sackur also interviewed Roy Bennett and Ben Freeth, who both looked like they were about to beat him to a pulp.
Ncube gives BBC reporter a HARDtime
18/09/2012 00:00:00
by Mthulisi Mathuthu
ONE reason why an African leader is much more likely going to give an interview to Western journalists than to local ones is that the former will always play into the leader’s hands by asking precisely the questions which suspiciously come out as though they were crafted by some mandarin or a chief government spook with the central aim of getting information that would help them shape government foreign policy.
Given that Western foreign policy is inherently incapable of moral uprightness, meaning that the journalist’s questions will naturally be prejudiced, that always comes in handy for the African leaders.
Perhaps nowhere is this apparent than in the September 18 BBC HARDtalk programme where Zeinabi Badawi’s questions to the MDC leader Welshman Ncube were so partisan that they brazenly exhibited the prejudices and fantasies of the Western mandarins on behalf of Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the other MDC faction.
Listening through the interview, one can’t help feeling that the central aim of the questioning was to project Ncube as the main problem and cause of the opposition’s failure to wrest power from Robert Mugabe. Indeed, the interviewee said she was aware of the details of the 2005 split but was, interestingly, not going to go into details about that. In the end it was as if the MDC split not because of Tsvangirai’s refusal to accede to internal ‘democratic outcomes’ but because Welshman Ncube was himself a problem.
Badawi asks Ncube to justify his opinion about MDC-T not being as democratic as it claims to be. In an attempt to load the dice against Ncube, Badawi rests her line of questioning on the opinions of people who she calls ‘various international figures’ whom she collectively refers to as the ‘international community’; and whose views should, therefore, translate to ‘international opinion’.
These people are US diplomat and former Ambassador to Zimbabwe, Christopher Dell, who, according to the WikiLeaks, said Ncube was a ‘divisive’ figure who should be removed from the political stage; and Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, who likened Tsvangirai to Nelson Mandela and Aung San Suu Kyi – both Nobel Peace Prize winners. Dell, the interviewee says, can be relied on more because he spent ‘many years’ in Zimbabwe.
In reminding Ncube of Dell’s opinion, Badawi’s body language betrays her as she comes out as an excited junior detective putting her killer question to a suspect. In bringing in all these things together, the idea is to present Ncube as indeed a ‘divisive’ person going against the supposedly credible people of international stature like Mandela.
To a viewer who is not familiar with the goings on in Zimbabwe, anybody whose view is against that of a Mandela equivalent must surely be crazy and worth ‘removing’ from the political stage.
The same applies with citing of the French Knighthood as an indicator to Tsvangirai’s moral uprightness and credibility – when we know all too well that that award has previously been awarded to savages.
Moreover, Dell cannot be one to rely on because his confident predictions have been previously disastrous. For example, prior to his departure he predicted a total economic implosion within a space of a few months in Zimbabwe, and that never came to pass.
At the end of the day, the HARDtalk interview comes out as one which was designed to lead Ncube into giving answers that would in turn confirm him as a Zanu PF agent. One such question was the last one where he is asked if he would contest against Mugabe in the event of Tsvangirai staging another boycott. If he had said yes, that would have, at least in the scheme of the people who planned the interview, confirmed him as a Zanu PF lackey. Ncube, as before, saw through the trick and survived.
One can’t help thinking that there is indeed fear that Ncube’s whirlwind campaign trail across the country is paying dividends and in a way that stands to reverse the fortunes of both the MDC-T and Zanu PF considerably. Spanners must, therefore, be thrown in his works. The idea, so it seems, is to indeed ‘remove Ncube from the political stage’ by all means necessary.
Strangely Dell, Zedawi and others like them seem to be oblivious to one vivid question: why is it that Tsvangirai, whom Mugabe so much resents to the extent that he has even tried to assassinate him, is vocally in disagreement with Mugabe in almost everything but is silently but willingly in agreement with him on Welshman Ncube’s isolation? What is it which Ncube represents that makes these two enemies forget their differences?
It will be helpful if Dell and his think-a-likes were to keep one thing in mind: it is easy for diplomats from powerful nations to activate the ancient habit of perpetuating prejudices of a particular section of a country they operate in knowing that they can always blame the victims of their actions. And yet it is true that policies grounded on narrow interests will often yield the opposite of what they are meant to achieve. Mugabe’s 32 year rule provides a clear and ongoing example.
Last but not least it would be helpful if journalists like Zedawi try and keep away from the habit of taking questions from mandarins because by so doing a journalist runs the risk of not just sounding shallow but of shunning basic research to the extent of getting many things wrong and thereby giving themselves a hard time such as happened in her interview with Ncube. One example in this case is the fact that Ncube is presented as the secretary general of the MDC, when he is actually the President.
Mthulisi Mathuthu is a New Zimbabwe.com blogger. E-mail him: thuthuma@yahoo.com
Labels: BBC, HARDTALK, WELSHMAN NCUBE
Read more...
Al Qaeda, The CIA and Media Propaganda directed Against Syria
by Devon DB
Global Research, August 3, 2012
The ‘objective’ news network
PBS has been (and still is) engaging in the media propaganda war against the Syrian government, from
perpetuating the myth about Syrian Migs attacking rebel fighters to
calling the Syrian rebels “underdogs,” the Public Broadcasting Service is
perpetuating the disinformation campaign surrounding the events in Syria.
On July 25th, PBS Newshour host
Judy Woodruff interviewed Youssef Amrani, Morroco’s minister delegate for foreign affairs. In the interview, Woodruff bought up the topic of diplomacy, specifically within the framework of the UN Security Council, with Amrani stating that he wanted more sanctions and the like on the Assad regime. When Amrani stated that he thought the UN “should work with the opposition” to find a solution to the crisis, Woodruff responded by saying;
Well, that brings me to the question. One of the reasons the U.S. and other countries have been reluctant to get involved, to support the opposition is because they don't know what a successor government is going to look like. We just saw in that report al-Qaida starting to show up among the opposition. (emphasis added)
Such statements are utter and outright fabrications! The US and other countries have been quite involved in supporting the opposition and Al Qaeda is not “starting to show up” in the opposition as Woodruff would like viewers to think, but rather have been there for quite some time.
In regards to the US supporting the Syrian rebels, this was first acknowledged in December 2011 on the site The American Conservative where former CIA analyst Philip Giraldi wrote an article in which he stated that “the CIA and U.S. Spec Ops are providing communications equipment and intelligence to assist the rebel cause, enabling the fighters to avoid concentrations of Syrian soldiers.” Most recently, it was reported on August 1st that President Obama “has signed a secret order authorizing U.S. support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government.”
The US government has known that Al Qaeda has been among the Syrian rebels as in February 2012, Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper stated that “Members of Al Qaeda have infiltrated Syrian opposition groups.”
Thus, the US government has been supporting the rebels since late last year and has been working with Al Qaeda (albeit indirectly) to topple the Syrian government, yet PBS seems to be concerned only with spouting lies.
In the same interview, when Woodruff asked Amrani “How can you be sure that the next government won't be as repressive as this government?,” Amrani replied by saying “Listen, we had some experiences in Libya, in Tunisia, in the Maghreb, that were successful.”
It is quite interesting that he cites Libya as a “success” as that nation, after being overrun by US-NATO backed fighters, has been plagued by violence in recent months. It makes one wonder what the ambassador thinks “success” actually means.
In an interview on July 26th, Judy Woodruff interviewed Kelly McEvers, a journalist from National Public Radio, after she had “just completed a weeklong reporting trip to northwestern Syria, near the Turkish border, where she visited a number of towns currently under rebel control. In the interview, McEvers was asked about the Syrian rebels. After her description of them, Woodruff stated the the rebels were outgunned to which McEvers responded
Exactly. They are so outgunned right now. They're basically operating with rifles and rocket-propelled grenades and homemade bombs.
That's another key component to their sort of arsenal right now. That's how they deal with regime tanks.
But when you talk about a fully equipped army with tanks, artillery, mortars, helicopters, and now we have seen jets being employed in this fight by the regime's army, you can see that the rebels are definitely the underdogs here. (emphasis added)
This myth that the Syrian rebels are outgunned is but another fabrication. It was reported on August 2nd that the Syrian rebels were using a captured tank in the battle for Aleppo. This is not the first time this has happened as in February, the International Business Times presented a video on Youtube which showed the rebels using a tank against the Syrian military. The use of fighters jets is also a myth that is based on a single tweet from BBC correspondent Ian Pannell. The magazine The Aviationist did a report on the alleged incident of Syrian air force MiGs attacking the rebels and found that the plane in question was an L-39 “a combat trainer” which “could be used for reconnaissance purposes.” Yet, even if the Syrian regime was using fighter jets on the rebels, the rebels most likely wouldn’t have a problem as they now have surface to air missiles. Despite this evidence, McEvers still feels the need to state that the rebels “are definitely the underdogs.”
Thus, the propaganda campaign of demonizing the Assad regime and praising the US-NATO backed rebels continues with the help of such ‘reliable’ and ‘centrist’ sources as PBS. The psyop against the public continues as the imperialists push ever closer to intervention in Syria.
Devon DB is a 20 year old independent writer and researcher. He is studying political science at Fairleigh Dickinson University. He can be contacted at devondb[at]mail[dot]com.
Global Research Articles by Devon DB
Labels: AL-QAEDA, BBC, LIBYA, PBS
Read more...
COMMENT -
The BBC seems to rely almost entirely, as illustrated by the above report, on un-named "activists say" sources - the same can be said about their coverage of Zimbabwe and Libya. Why does the BBC sell it's reputation so cheaply?
Her Majesty's BBC's Syria Coverage: "Sorry for the Lies"...
by Felicity Arbuthnot
Global Research, July 2, 2012
“Creativity is the lifeblood of our organisation.” (BBC Mission statement.) As the sabre rattling towards Iran and the ongoing tragedy in Syria become increasingly hard to unravel, "media errors" or perhaps even "obfuscation" create their own navigational complexities. One example: on Sunday July 1st, BBC news programmes repeatedly stated that Syrian troops had fired at mourners at a funeral in or near Damascus (i.) Para 4:
“...Meanwhile, activists said a funeral procession in a suburb of Damascus came under mortar attack and 30 people died.
“The UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights released amateur video footage claiming to show the explosion in Zamalka, a town 10km (six miles) east of the Syrian capital.
“There has been no independent confirmation of the incident.”
However the Los Angeles Times had an entirely different take on exactly the same event (ii.) A car bomb, rather than mortar attacks by Syrian forces, had killed up to eighty five mourners or members of the public:
“The car bomb went off as the procession passed a mosque. Hazy video clouded by dust in the first moments after the explosion showed dozens of mangled bodies lying on the road and the stretcher carrying Halabi’s body on the ground nearby.
‘ "I can’t describe my feelings, because I am still numb right now given what I saw today," said Abu Omar, whose cousin was killed and father and uncle injured. "No one can withstand what we saw …” ‘
Whilst, clearly in shock, not citing facts, the witness quoted by the Los Angeles Times also blamed the government. However, at least he had a name, there was a first hand description of events and the graphic picture showed this was no random shooting.
The BBC seems to rely almost entirely, as illustrated by the above report, on un-named "activists say" sources - or the "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights", allegedly a one man satellite dish fitter from Coventry, in England’s West Midlands.
The shocking recent picture of victims of a "massacre in Syria”, shown by the BBC as proof that the government was responsible (iii) turned out to be "photographic evidence" (taken from the BBC's photo archives) of a 2003 massacre in Iraq, which was the result of the illegal US-UK led invasion and occupation. Needless to say, the BBC's "score card" for accurate reporting currently reads: "Must do better."
These are two incidents, among many others, which leave an impression of biased coverage and media maniupulation. With regard to Syria, the BBC is serving as a cheer leader for a new invasion rather than that of an impartial news gathering organisation.
Many scholarly articles have been written comparing the complexities in Syria with the Balkans conflict of the 1990s (eg: iv) including foreign interference and funding - and media bias.
After the NATO assault on the Balkans, the BBC’s Defense Correspondent of eleven years, Mark Laity who had covered the conflict, joined NATO at their Brussels headquarters as deputy to their chief spokesman, Jamie Shea. (v)
Laity rose to become Chief of Strategic Communications at SHAPE (Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers in Europe) which commands all NATO military operations.
The BBC receives a large amount of funding from the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, supposedly the diplomatic arms of the government whose Foreign Secretaries, of which ever political persuasion, have long favoured “war, war”, over “jaw, jaw” to misquote another war monger.
UK Foreign Secretary William Hague has missed no opportunity to join US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in declaring that the sovereign government of President Assad of Syria: “ … must go”, and indeed advocating Britain’s funding of the insurgents.
Whilst the Foreign Office funds go to the BBC World Service, an arm of the organization which plays a vital role: “Constitutionally, BBC World Service forms an integral part of the BBC Global News Division which also contains BBC World and the BBC's international-facing online news services.”(vii)
Interesting to note is that the BBC also applied for funding from the US State Department, in a deal to combat censorship: “The funding is also expected to be used to educate people in countries with state censorship in how to circumnavigate the blocking of internet and TV services.”
"Governments who have an interest in denying people information particularly at times of tension and upheaval are keen to do this and it is a particular problem now”, said BBC Controller of Business and Strategy, Jim Egan.(viii)
The deal, was expected to be formally announced on International Press Freedom Day, on 3rd May. Seemingly though, funding the British state broadcaster met with some hostility in the US and the arrangement seems, currently, to have foundered. It has certainly gone very quiet. (ix)
Ironically on June 30th, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s criticisms from the Geneva summit, about the Western media's news coverage of the situation in Syria, allegedly led the BBC to interrupt his speech with a weather forecast.
“Lavrov’s press conference at the Geneva meeting on Saturday June 30 provided another chance for the BBC to show its bias against the Syrian government”, stated Press TV, the media outlet of one of the countries the State Department funding was meant to “liberate” from censorship – Iran. (x.).
Notes
i. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18650775
ii. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/06/more-than-70-killed-by-car-bombing-at-funeral-in-syrian-town.html
iii. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9293620/BBC-News-uses-Iraq-photo-to-illustrate-Syrian-massacre.html
iv. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=30001
v. http://www.jfcnaples.nato.int/hqskopje/page52724739.aspx
vi. http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/?view=PressS&id=619823882
vii. http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/keyfacts/stories/ws_constitution.shtml
viii. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/20/bbc-world-service-us-funding
ix. http://opennet.net/blog/2011/03/bbcs-application-us-state-department-funding-draws-american-criticism
x. http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/07/02/248919/bbc-interrupts-lavrov-speech/
Labels: BBC, CENSORSHIP, PROPAGANDA, WAR CRIMES
Read more...
BBC Wages Propaganda War on Syria
Posted: 2012/05/31
by Stephen Lendman
`British Barbaric Colonial` (BBC) news media, far from independent and free, is one hundred percent government owned, paid for by the taxes of British working people, and directed by MI6Millions globally follow BBC reports regularly. Most perhaps don't know they get propaganda, not real news, commentary and opinion. Since established in October 1922, it's operated as a UK imperial tool. Its first general manager, John Reith, set the tone, saying: "They (meaning the UK government) know they can trust us not to be really impartial."
Straightaway he
betrayed the public trust. Operating as
a reliable business and government partner got BBC labeled the "British Falsehood Corporation." Some today call it the "British Bombing (or Bombast) Club."
Reith used BBC as a strikebreaker.
[I remember the 'slow trickle back to work' meme from the 1980s strikes. - MrK]
He secretly wrote anti-union speeches. He refused air time for worker representatives. He and current officials represent elitist interests, not public ones media outlets are supposed to serve.
Job applicants are vetted to assure pro-government, pro-business credentials. Aberrant ones aren't wanted. Whether on domestic or foreign issues, fair and balanced reporting isn't tolerated.
How can it be when government officials appoint senior managers. Any stepping out of line get fired. Nothing changed from inception to now.
Its claim about "honesty, integrity (being) what the BBC stands for, free from political influence and commercial pressure" is willful, deceptive hype.
UK-based Media Lens offers independent, "authoritative criticism." Its reports reflect "reality." It's free from corporate or government influence.
It covers BBC reporting. It once called it fundamentally one-sided, imbalanced, "biased, blinkered and culpable."
"Anyone can spot the propaganda with a modicum of vigilance while watching the news."
Western interests alone are represented. Viewers and listeners get one side only. They're "clearly expected to identify with NATO." They're "asked to assume there is a moral basis to (its) killing."
Attacking nations Washington and Britain declare "officially-decreed enemies" is supposed to be just and righteous no matter how lawless and indefensible.
BBC does what it's told. It's government funded, operated and controlled. It's Britain's official voice. It pretends to be independent and impartial.
"Propaganda merchants R Us," says Media Lens.
"In each decade, from its inception to the present day, the BBC bears the scars of its entanglements with those in power."
Media Lens quoted BBC news director, Helen Boaden. On June 10, 2011, she spoke the above words. She discussed the "value of journalism speech."
She quoted Groucho Marx once saying:
"The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing....And if you can fake that, you've got it made!"
Journalists are supposed to speak truth to power. Few, in fact, do it. None working for scoundrel media. BBC falls woefully short. It represents interests it's supposed to confront and hold to account.
Instead it serves wealth and power. It's a "propaganda system for elite interests," says Media Lens. Viewers and listeners are betrayed, especially on issues mattering most.
What's more important than war or peace? When Britain and America rage to fight, BBC marches in lockstep.
On February 1, 2012, the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) headlined "BBC Peddles War Propaganda," saying:
BBC willfully misrepresents Iran's nuclear program. For example, on January 26, it "explicitly stated that Iran has nuclear bombs!"
A "tirade of demonization and misinformation" followed. Spurious accusations claimed Iran threatens world peace. Question Time host David Dimbleby breached journalistic fairness and accuracy codes. He featured guests stating spurious misinformation, not truth and full disclosure.
Journalist Melanie Phillips claimed "Iran is threatening genocide against Israel virtually every week, and it means it." She referred to the canard about wiping Israel off the map.
She continued saying:
"You are dealing in Iran with people who are not rational. You are dealing with people who believe that if they provoke the apocalypse, the end of days, they will bring to earth the Shiia Messiah, the Mahdi, and so they are in the business of provoking an apocalypse."
"It does not matter to them that in a nuclear exchange they may lose half of their own country. It doesn’t matter. This is the mentality that you are dealing with. And the threat is to all of us."
Broadcasting these type comments is unconscionable. Other guests say similar things. BBC features them. Viewers and listeners are misinformed. It repeats daily, especially when Britain and America plan war. CASMII had every right to complain. Doing so fell on deaf ears.
Last March, Alastair Crooke headlined his Asia Times article "Syria: Straining credulity?"
He quoted an unnamed US officer defining the future of warfare. In a 1997 US Army War College Quarterly article, he said:
"....we are already masters of information warfare. Hollywood is 'preparing the battlefield.' (We) will be writing the scripts, producing them, and collecting the royalties. Our creativity is devastating."
"Hatred, jealousy, and greed - emotions, rather than strategy - will set the terms of (information warfare) struggles."
Media scoundrels play the same role. The Syrian conflict "is scripted in emotional images and moralistic statements that always....trump rational analysis."
Baseless suspicions bring charges of crimes against humanity. Opposition and Western sources are cited. Warmongering officials write the scripts. Media scoundrels regurgitate their misinformation.
"Those who try to argue that Western intervention can only exacerbate the crisis are confronted (with images) of dead babies."
Those who write the scripts set the tone. Who'll contradict them without major media support? Expect none from BBC.
"Are we now to (believe) that armed opposition (insurgents are) motivated by" humanitarian concerns? "Will a Kosovo-type solution (improve things) in Syria?"
Does "anyone really believe American and European objectives in Syria (are) purely humanitarian?" Info-wars have other things in mind. At issue is regime change, not reform. It's about isolating Iran. It's about setting the stage for toppling its government after disposing of Syria.
"Do these reporters really believe" the agitprop they air? "Perhaps some do, but others (say things) to prepare the battlefield."
It bears repeating. When America, Britain, and rogue partners go to war or plan one, media scoundrels march in lockstep. BBC's done it for decades. Now it's at it again.
Spurious accusations claim Iran is developing nuclear weapons. In fact, none exist, and Iran threatens no one.
On May 27, Houla's massacre was featured. Reporting from Beirut, Jim Muir said:
"Some opposition groups are saying this could be a turning point."
"Western nations are pressing for a response...."
America wants "an end to (Assad's) 'rule by murder.' "
"The killings have sparked a chorus of international condemnation."
US, UK, French, and UN officials were quoted. They all pointed fingers one way. So did BBC by featuring them. The blame game accuses victims. Perpetrators get scant mention. Heated interventionist calls increase. "(I)ndiscriminate and disproportionate use of force" was charged.
On May 29, BBC reported on "how a massacre unfolded," saying:
"Anti-government activists, eyewitnesses and human rights groups - including the UN's high commissioner for human rights - point the finger at the Syrian army and the shabiha, a sectarian civilian militia that supports the regime of Bashar al-Assad."
BBC claimed army shelling began the attack. Syria categorically denies it. No tanks or artillery targeted Houla. None were positioned nearby. Hundreds of heavily armed Western-sponsored gunmen bear full responsibility.
Like other scoundrel media, BBC reported a tsunami of misinformation and lies.
On May 27, the London Telegraph headlined "BBC News uses 'Iraq photo to illustrate Syrian massacre," saying:
Willful deception was caught red-handed. The image used "was actually taken on March 27, 2003...." It "shows a young Iraqi child jumping over dozens of white body bags containing skeletons found in a desert south of Baghdad."
BBC posted it on its web site under the heading "Syria massacre in Houla condemned as outrage grows." The caption suggests Houla bodies awaited burial.
Photographer Marco di Lauro spotted the deception. He took the photo. When he saw it he said he nearly "fell off his chair," adding:
"One of my pictures from Iraq was used by the BBC web site as a front page illustration claiming (Houla body images were) sent by an activist."
BBC pulls stunts like this often. So do US and other Western media. Notoriously they misreport on imperial wars and events preceding them. Propaganda substitutes for real news and information. Apologies after the fact when caught don't matter. Damage done can't be reversed.
What could Assad gain by killing babies, young children, women and the elderly? How would cutting their throats or shooting them at point blank range help? Obvious questions go unanswered. Regurgitated lies substitute.
The pattern repeats when Washington, Britain, and rogue partners want independent governments toppled. Media propaganda promotes wars.
It rages against Syrian civilians. Insurgent death squad assassins target them. They've been doing it since early last year. Like other scoundrel media, BBC ignores truths and features willful misinformation and lies. Fake images are prominently featured.
Viewers and listeners are misinformed and betrayed. Many wonder what's next. Domestic needs suffer to serve ravenous imperial appetites. No end of conflicts appear near.
Iran parliamentarians condemned the Houla massacre. They compared it to Israel's Sabra and Shatila slaughter. They called it "blatant....terrorist acts (of) mass murder...." Insurgents bear full responsibility. Assad is wrongfully blamed.
America should be held accountable, they said. Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said it was done "to create chaos and instability." It's also about preventing peace and paving the way for war.
On May 29, Press TV reported that the Habilian Association human rights group said:
"We have conclusive proof and documents showing that the MKO (Mujahedlin-e Organization) has a strong and significant presence in Syria."
"The terrorist group has begun, in an all-out fashion, acts of sabotage and terrorism against the Syrian government and nation, and has found major influence among the Syrian rebels."
Washington is directly involved. So are Western and regional partners. MKO plans a "large-scale attack." Preparations are underway.
Everything ongoing facilitates Washington's war plans. The worst could erupt any time. First Syria, then Iran, then new targets in an endless cycle of violence, killing, and destruction. Expect it. It's coming.
-- Mathaba Analyst Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
His new book is titled "How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War".
#
http://mathaba.net/go/daily
Twitter Facebook
→ The BBC and Zionist talking points on the evening of 9/11/01
→ BBC, Libya, & Cluster Bombs
→ BBC = Bin and Bypass Complaints
→ BBC Defends Refusal to Cover War Crimes Tribunal
→ Time to pull the plug on the BBC
→ The BBC, Impartiality, And The Hidden Logic Of Massacre (Part 2)
→ The BBC, Impartiality, And The Hidden Logic Of Massacre
→ The BBC Refuses To Broadcast Gaza Charity Appeal
→ In Focus: BBC's Pro-Israeli Bias
→ Covering Israel-Palestine - The BBC'S Double Standards
→ BBC: Imperial Tool
Labels: BBC, IRAN, PROPAGANDA
Read more...
COMMENT - I have no sympathy for anyone who works for the BBC, who then travels to Zimbabwe and starts whining about being arrested because they didn't go for press accreditation first. If the BBC didn't employ shills for Anglo-American De Beers and neocolonialism, this wouldn't even be an issue, it certainly wasn't during the 1980s and 1990s.
BBC presenter said held in Zimbabwe
26/05/2012 00:00:00
by Staff Reporter
Petroc Trelawny, 42, faces charges of working without accreditation, the ZimVigil said in a statement from London.
Trelawny, a classical music presenter for BBC Radio 3 and the BBC 2 TV channel, was NOT working at the time of his arrest on Thursday night, according to the ZimVigil’s Rose Benton.
“Trelawny was taking part in the Bulawayo Music Festival which opened on May 23 and is due to end on May 27. He has been transferred to prison in Harare,” the statement added.
One of the organisers of the festival, who declined to be named, said he had kept in touch with Trelawny who was being "treated well".
Britain’s ambassador Deborah Bronnert to Zimbabwe has been to visit Trelawny in prison, according to sources.
New Zealand photo journalist Robin Hammond spent 25 days in a Zimbabwean jail after being arrested in Beitbridge last month.
Foreign journalists intending to work in Zimbabwe must seek permission from the Information Ministry prior to entering the country under tough media laws.
Labels: BBC
Read more...
European Parliament condemns Argentina's YPF nationalisation
20 April 2012 Last updated at 20:54 GMT
Members of the European Parliament have condemned Argentina's decision to nationalise the Spanish-controlled oil company YPF. They said the move was "an attack on the exercise of free enterprise".
They also demanded that the European Commission take action against Buenos Aires at the World Trade Organization.
Spain meanwhile announced its first retaliatory step, saying it would promote Spanish biodiesel fuel production to reduce Argentine imports.
'Not worried'
Deputy Prime Minister Soraya Saenz de Santamaria said Spain was considering further political and diplomatic measures in retaliation for Argentina's decision to take control of 51% of YPF.
Argentine officials have said they are not worried about possible reprisals.
Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner announced the measure on Monday, saying she was asserting sovereignty over Argentina's energy resources.
The move has wide support in Argentina but has provoked outrage in Spain, which has threatened reprisals.
Repsol has said it wants around $10bn for its stake in YPF, but Argentina has said it does not accept that valuation.
It says YPF did not invest enough to increase output from its oil fields, forcing Argentina to rely on imports.
YPF, Argentina's biggest oil company, was privatised in 1993.
Last year it announced huge new finds of shale oil and gas.
Labels: BBC, NATIONALISATION, NEOCOLONIALISM
Read more...
BBC to issue global apology for documentaries that broke rules
Independent revealed programmes were made by third-party in pay of governments and firms
Ian Burrell
Ian Burrell is Assistant Editor and Media Editor of The Independent.
Saturday 11 February 2012
The BBC will today apologise to an estimated 74 million people around the world for a news fixing scandal, exposed by The Independent, in which it broadcast documentaries made by a London TV company that was earning millions of pounds from PR clients which it featured in its programming.
BBC World News viewers from Kuala Lumpur to Khartoum and Bangkok to Buenos Aires will watch the remarkable broadcast, available in 295 million homes, 1.7 million hotel rooms, 81 cruise ships, 46 airlines and on 35 mobile phone platforms, at four different times, staged in order to reach audiences in different time zones. The BBC will apologise for breaking "rules aimed at protecting our editorial integrity".
The Independent exposed last year in an investigation into the global television news industry how the BBC paid nominal fees of as little as £1 for programmes made by FBC Media (UK), whose PR client list included foreign governments and multinational companies. The company made eight pieces for the BBC about Malaysia while failing to declare it was paid £17m by the Malaysian government for "global strategic communications". The programmes included positive coverage of Malaysia's controversial palm oil industry.
The BBC also used FBC to make a documentary about the spring uprising in Egypt without knowing the firm was paid to do PR work for the regime of former dictator Hosni Mubarak.
The BBC Trust's Editorial Standards Committee carried out an investigation into BBC World News which reported in November it had uncovered 15 breaches of editorial guidelines. Eight of the breaches were in respect of FBC programmes made about Malaysia. The trust also identified other breaches of rules on sponsorship in programmes shown by BBC World News, which is a commercial entity and carries advertising. In its apology, the BBC will say: "A small number of programmes broadcast on BBC World News between February 2009 and July 2011 broke BBC rules aimed at protecting our editorial integrity. These rules ensure that programmes are free, and are seen to be free, from commercial or other outside pressures."
Making a direct reference to the FBC documentaries, it will say: "In the case of eight other programmes, all of which featured Malaysia, we found that the production company which made the programmes appeared to have a financial relationship with the Malaysian government. This meant there was a potential conflict of interest, though the BBC was not aware of it when the programmes were broadcast."
It concludes: "Editorial integrity is the highest priority for BBC World News, which is why we apologise for these breaches of our normal standards."
The Independent has revealed FBC, which was run by the former Financial Times journalist Alan Friedman and the CNN presenter John Defterios, was also making editorial programmes that featured FBC clients for the global business broadcaster CNBC, which suspended its FBC-made show World Business. Other FBC clients included the governments of Greece and Kazakhstan and companies like Microsoft. FBC also tried to suggest in its promotional literature it had "cultivated" key opinion formers, such as economist Jeffrey Sachs, as "ambassadors". Sachs totally rejected the claim.
When The Independent published its investigations into FBC the firm said it had kept strict divisions between its editorial and PR operations. FBC closed its London offices and went into administration in October. Broadcasting regulator Ofcom is investigating FBC.
Bad practice: The stories
Hosni Mubarak
As Egypt was in the throes of a revolution, the BBC commissioned FBC to make a documentary on the country. But the firm had a commercial relationship to promote Egypt as "liberal and open". The programme, Third Eye: Egypt, warned of the threat of takeover by Islamic fundamentalists.
Mark Thompson
The BBC director general has ordered an end to the practice of acquiring news programmes for "low or nominal cost" after the BBC admitted 15 breaches of its editorial guidelines and buying documentaries for "nominal" fees as little as £1 from a company that was working to promote foreign governments.
Malaysia
Since 2009 FBC has made at least four BBC documentaries dealing with Malaysia and controversial issues such as the country's palm-oil industry and its treatment of rainforests and indigenous people. The company has received millions of pounds in payments from the government of Malaysia for a "global strategic communications campaign".
Labels: BBC, BRIBERY, DOCUMENTARY
Read more...
COMMENT - My educated guess is that if they start looking into the BBC's reporting on Zimbabwe, especially the original reason they as an organisation were thrown out of the country, they will uncover a lot of illegal and unprofessional conduct, including money having been paid to individuals like Grant Ferret and the likes.
UK Journalists nabbed for corruption
Sunday, 12 February 2012 00:00
Picture editor John Edwards, chief reporter John Kay, chief foreign correspondent Nick Parker, reporter John Sturgis and associate editor Geoff Webster were arrested, the BBC understands. The arrests in the early hours of yesterday are part of the Operation Elveden probe into payments to police. News Corporation confirmed only that five employees of The Sun were arrested.
Five men aged between 45 and 68 were arrested in London, Kent and Essex on suspicion of corruption, aiding and abetting misconduct in a public office, and conspiracy in relation to both offences.
A 39-year-old Surrey Police officer, a 39-year-old Ministry of Defence employee and a 36-year-old member of the armed forces were also arrested at their homes on suspicion of corruption, misconduct in a public office and conspiracy in relation to both.
Those arrested are being questioned at police stations in London, Kent, Essex and Wiltshire, police said.
News Corp said its Management and Standards Committee (MSC) had provided information to the Elveden inquiry which led to the arrests.
The company said in a statement: "News Corporation remains committed to ensuring that unacceptable news-gathering practices by individuals in the past will not be repeated and last summer authorised the MSC to co-operate with the relevant authorities.
"The MSC will continue to ensure that all appropriate steps are taken to protect legitimate journalistic privilege and sources, private or personal information and legal privilege.
"News Corporation maintains its total support to the ongoing work of the MSC and is committed to making certain that legitimate journalism is vigorously pursued in both the public interest and in full compliance with the law."
A Ministry of Defence spokeswoman said: "We do not comment on ongoing investigations."
News Corporation is the parent company of News International which owns The Sun and The Times.
Operation Elveden is running alongside the Metropolitan Police's Operation Weeting inquiry into phone hacking at the now-closed News of the World.
- BBC.
Labels: BBC, CORRUPTION, INTERNATIONAL MEDIA, PROPAGANDA
Read more...
