Reprinted from Consortium News
In the multi-layered double standards of its international coverage, the New York Times demonstrates how propaganda works: Outrage is the only appropriate response when an adversary breaks a rule but a shrug is okay when it's "our side." Plus, there must be perfect evidence to accuse "our side" of an offense but anything goes when it's an adversary.
Recent Times' articles illustrate how this hypocrisy works. Take, for example, international law, especially prohibitions against aggression. When the topic is Ukraine and the alleged violator is Russia, no extreme is too extreme in denouncing Russia's President Vladimir Putin. But the concern about international law simply disappears when discussing Syria and the desirability of U.S. President Barack Obama overthrowing the government there.
However, when it comes to demanding Obama dispatch the U.S. military to take out Syria's government, the Times forgets international law; it's all about the mitigating circumstances that justify the U.S. bombing of Syrian government troops and paving the way for a rebel victory.
A good example of this is a Nov. 28 article by Times correspondent Anne Barnard that hammers Obama over the supposed inconsistencies in his policy of bombing Islamic State radicals inside Syria but not also turning the U.S. military loose against the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad.
Barnard writes that anti-Assad forces inside Syria...
"...conclude, increasingly, that the Obama administration is siding with Mr. Assad, that by training United States firepower solely on the Islamic State it is aiding a president whose ouster is still, at least officially, an American goal.
"Their dismay reflects a broader sense on all sides that President Obama's policies on Syria and the Islamic State remain contradictory, and the longer the fight goes on without the policies being resolved, the more damage is being done to America's standing in the region."
It may be a fair point that the U.S. military strikes inside Syria against Islamic State radicals, who have also seized territory in Iraq, is at least a technical violation of international law, but the Syrian government has acquiesced to these attacks since they are aimed at a rebel force that is widely regarded as terrorist. Thus, the bombings have some color of legitimacy.
However, attacking Syrian government forces is a horse of an entirely different color. That would be a clear-cut violation of international law. It would be a war of aggression deemed by the Nuremberg Tribunal after World War II to be the "supreme international crime" because it "contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." Yet, this important legal point is entirely missing from the Times article, which focuses instead on how Obama has offended Assad's opponents by attacking the Islamic State, not Assad.
In effect, the Times is pushing the neoconservative line that the United States should first undertake "regime change" in Syria before it deals with the Islamic State. In making that case, the Times not only leaves out the question of international law but gives short-shrift to the danger that destroying Assad's military might open the gates of Damascus to the Islamic State or al-Qaeda's affiliate Nusra Front, the only two effective fighting forces among the Syrian rebels.
Addressing International Law
A more professional news article would have seriously addressed both the international law issue and the dangers inherent in a U.S.-driven Syrian "regime change," including the very real possibility that a jihadist victory in the heart of the Middle East could force a full-scale U.S. military intervention, requiring hundreds of thousands of troops and costing hundreds of billions of dollars.
Indeed, the Times' coverage of the Syrian crisis often looks like a replay of the newspaper's gullible acceptance of the neocon-predicted "cakewalk" through Iraq in 2003. In the Iraq War, too, there was scant attention paid to the question of the United States violating international law and to the chance that the invasion might not go as smoothly as the neocons dreamt.
While ignoring the issue of U.S. aggression in a war on Syria, the Times presents the Ukraine crisis as a simple matter of Russian "aggression" by leaving out the context of a U.S.-backed coup on Feb. 22 that forced President Viktor Yanukovych and his officials to flee for their lives and prompting resistance to the new order from eastern and southern Ukraine which had been Yanukovych's political base.
As former Rep. Dennis Kucinich has written, this important background -- and the earlier expansion of NATO into eastern Europe -- would put the Ukraine story in a very different light:
"NATO encirclement, the U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine, an attempt to use an agreement with the European Union to bring NATO into Ukraine at the Russian border, a U.S. nuclear first-strike policy, are all policies which attempt to substitute force for diplomacy.
"Russia's response to the terror unleashed by western-backed neo-nazis in Crimea and Odessa came after the local population appealed to Russia to protect them from the violence. Russia then agreed to Crimea joining the Russian Federation, a reaffirmation of an historic relationship.