I et interview med spanske aviser som blev udgivet den October 31st, fordømte FNs Generalsekretær Ban Ki-Moon USAs præsident Barack Obamas krav at præsident Bashar al-Assad skal fjernes fra sit embede, og Moons sagde: "Assads fremtid skal besluttes af det syriske folk."
Her er hele citatet:
"Præsident Assads fremtid skal besluttes af det syriske folk, Nu er det ikke sådan at jeg vil blande mig i processen i Wien, men jeg mener at det er totalt uretfærdigt og uforståeligt at en mands skæbne [diplomatsprog her for: USAs præsident Barack Obamas krav om at Assad skal fjernes fra sin post som præsident af Syrien] skal paralysere hele denne politiske forhandling.FNs generalsekretær er her implicit og skyder skylder for alt dette - masser af blod og elendighed - på den amerikanske præsident Obama, og de "mange vestlige lande" som er allieret med ham og har slået fælles kurs med ham i at kræve et regime-skifte i Syrien.
Dette er ikke acceptabelt. Det er ikke retfærdigt. Den syriske regering insisterer at Assad skal være en del af overgangsperioden. Mange vestlige lande er imod den syriske regerings holdning. I mellemtiden har vi tabt adskillige år.
250,000 mennesker er blevet dræbt. Der er 13 millioner flygtninge eller internt fordrevne. Over 50% af hospitaler , skoler og infrastruktur er blevet ødelagt i Syrien.
I må ikke miste mere tid. Denne krise går udover Syrien, udover regionen. Den berører Europa. Det er en global krise."
Kommentar: Denne artikel er delvis oversat til dansk af sott.net fra Even the UN gets it: Ban Ki-moon condemns US position on Syria, endorses Putin
The position of Russia's President Vladimir Putin has been, and is, to the exact contrary of Obama's: namely, that only an election by the Syrian people can determine whom Syria's President should be. The U.N. Secretary General is here agreeing with Putin, and rejecting Obama's demand, that the matter be determined instead by non-Syrians, and by non-democratic means (which is basically like George W. Bush did in Iraq, and like Barack Obama did in Libya).
Suckers in the West fall for the Western aristocracies' line that Putin and not Obama is wrong on this and is the cause of the dragged-out Syrian war. Such fools don't even ask themselves whether in this dispute it is Obama, or instead Putin, who is supporting the most basic democratic principle of self-rule by the people. But the average individual is that manipulable: so manipulable as to think that black is white, and white is black; that good is bad, and bad is good. Totally manipulable.
This interview was buried by Spanish newspapers, because the Spanish government is allied with the United States. For example, the most prominent Spanish newspaper to publish even quotations from this interview is El Pais, and their headline for the story is "Catalonia is not among the territories with the right to self-determination." Even there, the headline is false. What Moon actually said instead on that issue of the Catalonian independence movement, was:
"The Catalan question is a very delicate matter and, while the UN Secretary General, I'm not in a position to comment on that because it is a purely internal matter."Lies and distortions in the Western 'news' media are that routine: so obvious, sometimes, virtually any intelligent reader can easily recognize that he's reading lies and propaganda (like in that 'news' story).
This newspaper actually buried the part about Assad and Obama (the blockbuster in the entire story) near the end, but not at the very end, of its report, because one of the standard things that 'news' media do if they want to de-emphasize a particular point is to bring the matter up near the end but not at the end. To place it at the end, would emphasize, instead of de-emphasize, the given point: it's not the professional way to bury news. Knowledge of how to bury news is important for the managers of any 'news' medium, because such knowledge is essential in order to make the medium achieve the objectives of the medium's owner, the propagandistic function, which is the main reason why wealthy people buy major 'news' media, and why major corporations chose to advertise in (and thereby subsidize) these media (which increases that given 'news' media-owner's income).
As to why the managers (including editors) of El Pais wanted their 'reporter' to misrepresent Moon as being opposed to Catalan independence, the reason is that the owners of El Pais are opposed to Catalan independence. It's not only in the editorials. With very few exceptions, a newspaper's editorials and its 'news' reporting are slanted the same way. However, sometimes, for particular reasons, the editorial position is instead slanted the opposite way from the 'news' 'reporting.' Public relations, or PRopaganda, is a science, not for amateurs. And a major function of management is to apply that science so as to maximize value for the medium's owners. It's like any business, but the press is also part of the business of government: moulding the public's opinions so as to serve the needs of the aristocracy that owns the vast majority of the nation's wealth. The idea of 'the free press' is itself PRopaganda. In reality, the press is far from free.
Anyway, Ban ki-Moon took a rare courageous position here: what he said was correct, though it's virtually unmentionable in the West. For example: how widely is this news-report being published? It was submitted to virtually all national news-media in the U.S. and several other Western countries. You can google the headline, "Ban Ki Moon Condemns the American Stand on Syria, Endorses Putin's" to find out how many (and which ones) are actually publishing it.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
Læserkommentarer
dig vores Nyhedsbrev