The
public’s reluctance to support an invasion of Iraq
is partly attributable to its growing awareness of the West’s
support for Saddam Hussein during the period of the latter’s
worst atrocities. When Saddam used chemical weapons “against
his own people”, he was supported by the same officials
who are today planning an invasion and the installation
of a puppet regime. All this is being brought to the public’s
attention. What is not widely remembered, however, is how
the press covered Saddam’s activities at the time.
In
Australia, one newspaper now stands out for its hawkish
tone. The Australian is the loudest and most persistent
in calling for an invasion of Iraq. It never tires of reminding
its readers that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons (sing
along) “against his own people”. It is worth reviewing
how The Australian covered the atrocities when they actually
occurred. Quantitative aspects of the coverage are revealing;
today’s profusion is in marked contrast to the paucity
of coverage during the 1980s. However, this article focuses
on the qualitative aspects: how reports were packaged, what
was stressed and what was de-emphasised, and the nature
of visual coverage.
KEY
ITEMS
1.In
March and April 1984, when chemical weapons were known to
have been used against Iran,1 The Australian published a story that suggested the gas attacks may have
been “fakes”.
It
identified the villain not as Iraq, but as Ayatollah Khomeini’s
Iran: “Iranians said to have been victims of mustard
gas attacks in the Gulf war may have only been victims of
a factory blast”.2
These
imposters were “allegedly dressed in soldiers’
uniforms and sent to the West by Ayatollah Khomeini in order
to whip up anti-Iraqi sentiment and, possibly, provide justification
for a chemical attack by Iran”.
The
Australian quoted an unnamed “Iranian refugee,
living in Paris”, who “saw as many as fifty burned
workers, still wearing overalls from the national petrol
company, arriving at a military hospital in Teheran”.
The
Australian’s prize source, the unnamed “Iranian
refugee, living in Paris”, claimed that “the Ayatollah
ordered that the men be dressed in army uniforms and sent
abroad for treatment”.
2.
The Australian published material broadly positive
toward Saddam’s regime
Among
other things, it claimed that Saddam Hussein was “a
brilliant orator—one diplomat in Baghdad says he speaks
Arabic the way de Gaulle spoke French. He also has the politician’s
touch: Iraqi television endlessly depicts him cuddling babies
and making jokes”.3 Readers were told of
Saddam’s “conspicuous concern for the Shiite community
by ordering the renovation of shrines in the holy Shi’ite
cities of Karbala and Najaf, at a cost of more than $200
million”. In a long commentary on the Baath Party,
The Australian noted that it:
courted
popularity since it came to power in 1968 by enforcing
land-reform laws and using Iraq’s huge oil wealth
(before the war it was the second biggest Arab oil producer)
to improve living standards. Villages have been electrified,
schools built, an adult literacy campaign launched and
a free health service established. Unemployment has been
abolished by official decree and by creating unproductive
jobs. There is little visible poverty. Iraqi women are
better treated than in many other Arab countries. In the
towns, women wander around freely in revealing Western
clothes. More women are going to university and getting
responsible jobs. As in Europe and the United States during
World War II, the departure of men for the battlefront
has opened up jobs for women. For the first two years
of the war, the Government continued to pour money into
development projects and subsidies on consumer goods.
The
Australian also pointed out that:
consumer
goods remains a priority: the Government does not want
an uncomfortable, discontented population. It imports
large amounts of luxury foods—frozen chickens from
Brazil, for instance. The United States has provided $400
million worth of grain which is not yet paid for. Food
distribution within Iraq is being liberalised: peasants
are now allowed to sell their produce privately, rather
than through the state distribution system. Last year
cucumbers were the only vegetable regularly available
in Baghdad. This year, almost all locally grown foods
are available. The Government makes sure the army is kept
happy. Soldiers are getting fat on generous rations. They
are well paid, and their families get cheap housing. Military
heroes get material rewards like free cars and houses.
War widows are given handsome pensions.
3.
When it discussed chemical weapons, it did not always mention
Iraq
In
one story, it reported that Egypt reportedly “used
a Soviet-supplied nerve agent in Yemen between 1963 and
1967. There are continuing reports, which the Soviets have
denied and some Western scientists questioned, that the
Soviets are using mycotoxins in South-East and South-West
Asia”.4 That report did not mention Iraq’s
use of chemical weapons—nor did it mention the word
‘Iraq’ in the story.
4.
It editorialised in the most general terms about the need
for an international approach to the problem of chemical
weapons
Expressing
the pious hope that there would be an “investigatory
body consisting of scientists from the more genuinely non-aligned
and neutral nations”, The Australian wrote of
the “possibility of confirming or refuting any allegations
concerning the use of poisonous gas and other obnoxious
methods of warfare”. Such a hypothetical body might
“act as some restraint against a proliferation of chemical
warfare”.5
Nowadays,
of course, The Australian wants nothing to do with “scientists from the more genuinely non-aligned and
neutral nations”.
5.
When Saddam Hussein did in fact use chemical weapons “against
his own people”, The Australian’s coverage
was remarkable for its portrayal of the Iraqi dictator in
a positive light
The
best known of Saddam’s chemical attacks against the
Kurds was at the city of Halabja over the period 16–17
March 1988. Mustard gas and nerve gas were used. Five days
later, The Australian carried a brief report on page 6,
quoting the Iranian news agency, IRNA.6 Subsequently,
the issue was placed in context: the regrettable thing about
Iraq’s use of chemical weapons, according to The Australian,
was that it had “given Teheran a propaganda coup and
may have destroyed Western hopes of achieving an embargo
through quiet diplomacy”.7 Iran was the
real beneficiary, readers were informed, because it “had
capitalised on the propaganda war against Iraq”.
Further
attempts were made to defend Saddam’s use of chemical
weapons “against his own people”. Quoting “senior
military analysts in Israel”, Iraq was acknowledged
as having “used nerve gas and chemical weapons in the
past” (in the past? Less than three weeks previously!)
“but only against targets inside Iraq and only when
important strategic positions, such as the city of Basra,
were threatened”.8
In
an editorial, The Australian condemned Iran’s
“reckless and violent attempts to intimidate the rest
of the world”.9 While Iraq was “led
by a brutish regime, which started the war”, it was
Iran, led by the Devil himself (Ayatollah Khomeini), that
“poses in the long term a threat to world peace probably
greater than that coming from any other source”. Khomeini’s
“intolerant and theocratic doctrine … makes rational
negotiations with non-believers all but impossible”.
Betty
Mahmoody’s book, Not Without My Daughter, was
also trotted out. Billing it “the nightmare ordeal
of a mother”,10 The Weekend Australian
Magazine re-printed excerpts from it, reminding readers
that Iran was a place where fundamentalist Islam flourished,
women are oppressed and “Americans are despised”.
The subtext was clear—never mind Iraq, the real danger
comes from Islamic Iran.
OBEDIENCE
Yet
it is a serious mistake to think that Islam was the real
enemy. In the 1980s the US launched major covert wars in
Central America—not against Islam but against the Catholic
Church. Terrorist atrocities were committed against the
Church because, after centuries of serving the rich, it
had begun to serve the poor. While these attacks were underway,
the US continued to support Saudi Arabia, the most reactionary
Islamic state in the world, and was organising and training
fundamentalist Muslims against the USSR. The US supported
Indonesia, the most populous Islamic state in the world,
during the reign of ‘President’ Suharto. It continued
to support Suharto during and after the genocide in East
Timor, whose largely animist population had sheltered under
the protection of the Catholic Church. The Australian was notorious as an apologist for Suharto’s crimes.
The
problem was not Islam—or the Catholic Church, or religion
in general. The problem was disobedience to imperial dictates.
The US defines its allies not by their values but by their
obedience. Saddam Hussein was obedient during the period
of his worst atrocities, and was therefore an ally. His
disobedience attracted the wrath of the US. And disobedience,
in the final analysis, is the standard applied by The
Australian.
VISUAL
ASPECTS
Compassion
towards the powerless is a universally recognised sign of
ethical conduct. It is no accident, then, that photos were
circulated showing Iraqi soldiers treating Iranian prisoners
of war humanely. A case in point is a photo published after
the chemical attacks at Halabja—“against his own
people”. With the atrocities confirmed, there was a
pressing need to improve the Iraqi army’s image. Dutifully, The Australian provided this service. The caption
read, “Iraqi soldiers give water to Iranians captured
during a battle for the Iraq port city of Fao—Reuters
picture”.11
Lest
this be thought atypical, it is worth noting that similar
photos were circulated showing Israeli soldiers giving water
to captured Palestinians and otherwise treating prisoners
humanely. Of course, they also appeared in The Australian.
One such photo showed a Palestinian prisoner drinking from
a water bottle held by an Israeli soldier. Another showed
a Palestinian man’s pulse rate being monitored by an
Israeli soldier for signs that the former had been running;
readers were informed that he had not, and was therefore
released immediately.
All
this when torture was routinely (and legally) used by Israeli
security forces.
The
reason for the pro-Iraqi coverage is the same as that for
the pro-Israeli (and pro-Indonesian) coverage—obedience.
The US was pro-Iraqi because Iraq performed a function.
Its utility, not its power, earned it the support of the
US, and of corporate media like The Australian.
CONTROL,
NOT ACCESS
It
is often said—incorrectly—that the US is interested
in access to Middle East oil. In fact, the US Saddam Hussein
was obedient during the period of his worst atrocities,
and was therefore an ally. wants control of oil—a very
different thing. Access means that the US simply wishes
to buy oil like any other country; that it wants oil at
a reasonable price. Control, on the other hand, means that
the US can use oil to exert influence against Europe and
Japan, whose economies are highly dependent on this energy
source. Control also means control of profits; oil-rich
countries use their revenues to buy advanced weapons systems
from the US, ensuring a huge subsidy for high-tech US industry.
Oil revenues are also used to buy US Treasury bonds, make
deposits in US banks, and otherwise flow back to US corporations.
‘Control’ is a vastly different proposition to
‘access’.
It
was Iraq’s geo-political role that earned it US support.
It performed a service in ensuring that the US retained
control over the energy resources of the region. When it
challenged the US plans, it immediately became an enemy.
The Australian’s coverage simply reflects this feature
of international life. The same holds true for Israel. If
the US ever comes to see Israel as a liability to its real
interest—control over the energy reserves of the Middle
East and the flow of petrodollars—then the US’s
pro-Israeli position will also change course quickly. The
Australian will follow suit.
ENDNOTES
