The critical importance of information

Article 19.

• Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

I am a great personal believer in the importance of information. Without going into all the sources or reasons here, I have a great belief in the common sense of the population. Because I believe that people will generally treat each other with respect and kindness if they are not driven by fear or ignorance.

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has a passage that is particularly helpful. “The right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

One of the most striking examples of the importance of information in both my own country Norway and across the world, regards the propaganda campaign which was launched in September 2002. The campaign was launched by the Bush administration to drive US public opinion completely off the spectrum, so as to garner support for the upcoming invasion and occupation of Iraq.

In the US the propaganda succeeded almost flawlessly. The vast majority of the main stream media outlets followed the administration’s lead and acted as its loudspeaker. Support for the war was completely dependent on the belief that the US was in imminent danger from an attack from Iraq.

This propaganda campaign failed miserably outside the US though. It was hard to find any country outside the USA, Britain, Israel and India where support for the war was higher than 10%, and each of these countries had their own reasons for supporting the war.

If you take Norway as an example, about 90% of the people were against the invasion of Iraq. When I have asked Americans why they believe that so many Norwegians were against the war, none of them were able to see the obvious answer.

The obvious answer is that the Norwegian people actually had main stream access to real information about Iraq, and just as the people in Iraq’s neighboring countries, everybody hated Saddam Hussein, but nobody was afraid of him.

Iraq had been devastated by war and sanctions and could not possibly threaten any of its neighbors, and certainly not the world’s undisputed superpower. The Norwegian population could see the truth of this situation on TV or in news papers.

Strong elements in the Norwegian government were supportive of the war, and wanted to join the invasion of Iraq, just as countries like Denmark and Britain had. But with such an overwhelming majority of the people being against the war, any involvement in the invasion was impossible for political reasons.

When some in the Norwegian main stream media somewhat bought into the message spread by CNN and similar news organizations in the US media, these were simply laughed out of the room for their lack of professionalism and insight by the rest of the media, even if they happened to be the largest commercial TV station in Norway and the largest tabloid news paper.

If Norwegians had been exposed to the same propaganda day in and day out as the Americans were, then there is a good chance Norway would have been on the front lines in the invasion of Iraq as well. But in this case the generally good purveyors of information in Norway made it impossible for the Norwegian government to take part in the criminal and unlawful invasion of Iraq.

With this and thousands of other available examples in mind, I believe that one of the most important human rights is this right to information and ideas from all possible sources, because if all you hear is propaganda, then the propaganda is what you will believe.

Because of this lack of knowledge among the general population, every country in the world is able to commit crimes or atrocities which the people would never stand for if they knew the truth. The more powerful a country is, like the US, Russia, China, Britain etc, the more important for the well being of the world the information will be.

There cannot be real democracy without real information and real knowledge, and without real democracy I am convinced we cannot have real peace, real prosperity, real equality, real sustainability or real justice.

The most important speech in history?

Any list of the gravest threats to humanity must contain nuclear weapons. Because of the spread of such weapons during recent years, and because the states which have nuclear weapons have not lived up to their promises in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, I would say that the threat of nuclear weapons is a threat to the survival of humanity.

This may well be the day the world changed forever. This may well be the day which we for the first time in human history saw the hope of a truly unified world. This may well be the day the American empire began its decline – for the benefit of all.

Today president Obama held a speech in Prague where he envisioned a world without nuclear weapons. If he spoke the truth, and that the US under his leadership truly will undertake the actions he outlined this day, then a clear and permanent break with history has been achieved.

President Obama talked about his wish that the US should ratify the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. This is a very important first step, and it would bring the US in line with the rest of the world and could create a powerful example.

The most important step by far would be the ratification of a verifiable fissile material cutoff (fissban) treaty, something president Obama said he wanted. The UN committee of disarmament has twice voted on such a verifiable treaty. In 2004 the vote was 147 to one (the US), and in 2005 the vote was 179 to two (the US and Palau). If the US under president Obama would vote for such a treaty, then the world would stand united against the creation of new nuclear weapons.

Another almost unbelievable acknowledgement by president Obama, was that he recognized the right of Iran to pursue peaceful nuclear energy – A right that has been obvious to all because Iran has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, but a right that the US so far vehemently has opposed.

Though president Obama’s statement in the speech was vague, he almost seemed to support a proposal made by Nobel peace prize winner and head of the International Atomic Energy Agency Mohamed ElBaradei. This proposal states that all production and processing of weapon-usable nuclear material should be under international control, so that only those willing to use it for peaceful purposes would have access. To my knowledge the only country which so far has agreed to such a proposal is Iran.

I do not know with what level of sincerity president Obama spoke today, but if he truly was sincere, then a giant leap has been taken towards increased security of all mankind.

Here is a link to the speech in Prague:

What I (and 90% of the world) would do to…

solve the conflict between Israel and Palestine.

At the very end of the Clinton administration, the world witnessed the only real hope of solving this conflict, and the week of negations in Taba in Egypt was a result of a stance by president Clinton which was the only constructive and helpful stance taken by the US since the crucial year of 1967.

The negotiations in Taba were unfortunately broken off by Israel due to their upcoming elections, and since then Bush and Sharon have done their best to totally demolish any real chance of peace. These negotiations did have one positive outcome though, they lead to the formation of the Geneva Accord – a document arrived at through unofficial negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, and a document which outlines the international consensus on the solution and what the solution must look like in the end since the majority of both countries would accept it.

The only thing stopping the Israelis and Palestinians from picking up the Geneva Accord and using it as the foundation for a renewed peace process, which ultimately must result in peace, has been that the US so far has agreed to fully back the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

Everyone in the world knows that both Israel and the US are both much more secure if this occupation is ended and a peace deal is reached. It must then follow that most Israeli and US administrations since 1967 have not seen their people’s security as a high priority. Now we can only hope that president Obama views the security of all parties as a high priority and ends the occupation.

When the Palestinian unity government is formed, which it must and will be, president Obama will have a new partner in Palestine which will desperately welcome a renewed peace process and is at the same time able to lead their people. Obama should then take this opportunity to invite the heads of the Israeli parties, which will form the new Netanyahu administration, to Washington.

He should then sit down with them in the Oval Office and congratulate them all heartily on being the leaders which will end their country’s occupation of Palestine, an occupation which has made their country an outcast in the world and a notorious breaker of international law.

Obama should explain that the new Israeli administration can follow two paths to peace.

Either they can agree to sit down and negotiate peace with the new Palestinian unity government using the Geneva Accord as the foundation for their negotiations. If the Israeli administration agrees to this then every single country in the world will support them both in the UN General Assembly and in the Security Council. Israel will be granted extremely beneficial trade deals with Europe, every Israeli settler which leaves occupied territory in the West Bank will be handsomely compensated by the international community and the US will guarantee the security of Israel within the borders agreed upon in the negotiations.

If the Israeli administration refuses to negotiate with the Palestinians and reach a deal along the lines of the international consensus, then this is what Obama should do: He should go to the UN Security Council and get a unanimous vote declaring that the borders between Isreal and Palestine are the 1967 borders, and that the world will create peace along those borders now. He should then get a vote in the UN General Assembly where every single country in the world will vote for his proposal except Israel. He should then completely cut all military assistance to Israel. Obama should then form an international force in the West Bank which will enforce international law. This force will both protect Israel, dismantle all illegal settlements and dismantle the parts of the Israeli separation wall which are on Palestinian land.

Since every other country in the world would stand with the US on this second option given to the Israeli administration, and because Israel cannot stand isolated against the entire world, its leaders would have no choice but to accept president Obama’s first proposal, and start negotiations again.

Everyone knows there is much hate. Everyone knows it will be hard. Everyone knows there are many risks, but when the entire world agrees on what must be the solution to a problem, then it is only time before the will of the world must be implemented.

Easily laudable

It was great to watch Jon Stewart crucify Jim Cramer on March 12. It was beautiful. Stewart argued passionately for CNBC to start doing reporting for the good of the people, instead of cozying up to the fat cats on Wall Street, and ignoring all their corruption. As Stewart elsewhere has put it, he wants the media to: “Come work for us again.”

Here is a link to the show.

Jon Stewart and his team’s obvious brilliance has been touted all over the world, but this latest battle with CNBC and Jim Cramer seems to have caught everyone’s attention. You can read page upon page about it in news papers, on web sites, on blogs and watch it talked about on TV. It even found its way to press secretary Robert Gibbs’ press briefing room, where it was described as serious journalism and thoroughly enjoyable.

I just read about the well deserved comparison of Jon Stewart to Edward R. Murrow in the paper of record, The New York Times, who described how this comparison was now being made by journalists all over the US.

Murrow was really an icon, and I love the portrayal of him in the movie Good Night and Good Luck, where he takes on Senator McCarthy and argues vehemently for TV not only being used as an instrument of entertainment, but also as an instrument which can teach, illuminate and inspire people.

The main arguments of Murrow and Stewart are more or less the same. Both want TV and the news to have the best interest of the people in mind. It is noble to argue for this. It is a noble endeavor to seek this. It is a noble cause to fight for this. And even though I admire both Jon Stewart and Edward R. Murrow greatly, I have to be honest and say that their argument is utter folly, and that it is based on false logic and a lack of understanding of the dominant forces in American society.

The basics of commercial media are pretty simple. The viewers or readers are not the audience, they are the product. The articles or the TV shows are not the content, they are the filler. Other corporations are the audience. The commercials are the content.

The huge corporations who own news papers or TV networks use these as a business to sell audiences to other corporations, so that these corporations will pay for the opportunity to advertise.

It then logically follows that TV networks want to maximize the product, namely the viewers, and at the same time shape their filler material so that it creates a good image of either current advertisers or possible future advertisers. All incorporated businesses are bound by law to maximize their profitability for their owners, so it would either take a completely stupid or criminal corporate management not to follow this logical conclusion.

Furthermore it also follows logically that any filler material the public is served by these corporations, such as for example news, never has the public’s best interest at heart, only the bottom line of the corporations.

In such totalitarian systems, because corporations are 100 % undemocratic, the only concern for the public good will be found with individuals. It is good that people like Stewart or Murrow laud such individuals and try to be them themselves.

The reason however that Stewart and Murrow are so highly praised by everyone in the corporate media and by many among the elites, is not only because what they are doing is obviously praiseworthy to anyone who can think their way out of a paper bag, but also because what they are doing is not challenging the system – only appealing to the people within it to do their best.

The corporate media is teeming with great reporters who quite often report real and thoughtful news, with the common good of the people in mind. These reports are however always in a great minority, always given few resources and never allowed the access or audience they deserve, because they are helpless in the big picture of the corporate system.

This is the reason why the US public hardly heard any voices opposing the second Iraqi war before it was already too late. This is the reason why the US public hardly heard any voices questioning the stability of the financial markets before the crash the fall of 2008. This is the reason why the US public hardly hears any voices in the corporate mass media supporting “single payer health care” – a policy that the majority of the people themselves support, and what almost every other industrialized nation on the planet considers as the best solution.

Stewart and Murrow get easy access and praise in the corporate media because they do not see the obvious truth – That their prophetical and true criticisms of the TV networks do not at all address the underlying reasons for the problems.

Jon Stewart said it perhaps best himself when he mocked Jim Cramer for expecting a CEO to tell him the truth about his company. For this I must now mock Jon Stewart, whom I admire and greatly enjoy watching, for expecting that a corporate network could ever tell the US public the truth about the world.

Contempt for democracy

It is with quite a bit of horror and dread I think back on the Vice Presidential debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden.

The shrill voice of Sarah Palin still makes me physically ill, not because of its timbre but because of the words it speaks. She was clearly not engaged on the very important political issues, and did obviously not understand them at all. She was running in a beauty pageant to become the next VP of the US. I have no problem either accepting or understanding this, only a problem with all the people who pretended to take her seriously.

Oddly enough it was not Sarah Palin who made the most outrageous statement the night of the VP debate, that came from Joe Biden. Not only was Biden’s statement outrageous, but it was also so incredibly contemptible that I couldn’t wait to see it make headlines all across the US the following morning.

But what did I find? Nothing. Not a word anywhere. Sure you could read page upon page about how Sarah Palin said she would not answer the questions like the Washington-insiders would like her to, or how she kept winking to the audience, but not the New York Times, HuffingtonPost or even my beloved DemocracyNow mentioned Biden’s disgraceful statement from the evening before, and neither did anyone else I could find.

What was this statement you might ask yourself? Well here it is at 4:28:

Biden criticises President Bush for allowing the Palestinians to hold elections after the death of Arafat. Now this sentence should make every awake journalist in the world stare at the TV in disbelief.

Biden tells us that both he and Obama opposed the elections in Palestine in 2006. Elections which international observers said were free and fair. Elections which were held in a part of the world starved on democracy. Elections held among a group of people, the Arabs, who are generally ruled by vicious dictators, and who desperately yearn for a way to take part in the governing of their own countries.

As outrageous as Biden’s statement was, it is nothing compared to the lack of reporting this issue got around the world after the debate. It really speaks volumes as to how widespread the indoctrination is in the media, and how deep the utter contempt for democracy runs.