|
Is the BBC Corrupt-ed or, simply biased Against Eritrea?
Amanuel Biedemariam
Throughout the last
nine decades the BBC held a position of credibility and notoriety only
matched by few. The BBC is one of the oldest and largest broadcasting
organizations with unmatched penetration ability. Historically, the BBC and
the Voice of America (VOA) held a unique place in the lives of many around
the globe. They enjoyed a positive perception particularly during the
Cold-War compared to the Soviet Union’s public information
campaigns based on Marxist and Leninist dogma. The VOA and the BBC
infiltrated nations around the world using the English language people
understand with ease. In addition, the democratic ideals and pop-culture the
West sold appealed to the wider world in many cases opposite religious
beliefs and cultural norms.
The BBC is a national broadcasting organisation founded on 1922 with
British Royal charter.It is publicly funded with a mission to “inform,
educate and entertain.” The BBC has a World Service programm
which is funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office(FCO).
It is the US State
Department equivalent responsible for promoting the interests of United
Kingdom around the globe. While the BBC claims independence and holds
reporting independence as a core-value, historically, its values
reflected the national agenda based on missios and strategic-approaches that
are designed to Bring UK to the World and the World to the UK. By proxy, BBC
reporters and esepcially BBC World Service reporters are extensions of
British FCO.
After the war
broke out between Eritrea
and Ethiopia
in 1998, we saw a trend of reporting and consistent campaign that attempted
to put Eritrea
in a bad light without concern to bias, facts and journalistic integrity. In
2000 we witnessed a BBC reporter Rageh Omaar flown into Eritrean territories by Ethiopian helicopters to
show the world how the mighty Ethiopian troops were able to penetrate deep
into Eritrean territories in a manner that resembles a safari-aerial-tour. He
ignored carnage that took place in other theaters of operation and gave the
world a wrong sanitized version ignoring tens of thousands dead Ethiopian
soldiers. We read an article by Alex Last that claimed Eritreans don’t sing
love songs, just war songs that kids are tired of therefore, they listen to
Ethiopian songs. He ignored the history of Eritrean music and failed to show
the role music plays in the lives of Eritreans. It is more of a PR campaign
to demonize Eritrea
even if facts contradict assertions.
The recent article
by Martin Plaut “Pirates Working with Islamist” is an excellent example. Here’s a quote: “Somali pirates have been accused of forming what is described
as an "unholy high seas alliance" with some of the country's
Islamist insurgents. The Islamists are using the pirates to train their own
forces in naval tactics so that they can provide protection for arms being
smuggled in Somalia
from Eritrea.
They are reported to have been picked up from islands off the Eritrean
coast.” end quote.
The summary of the
referred quote; Eritrea
is training arming and delegating the pirates from her coasts. The Islamic
Court Union (IRC) doesn’t own a naval facility so Eritrea
becomes directly responsible.
This is
blasphemous to the law abiding people of Eritrea.
This article places the people of Eritrea
in a crime seen. It attempts to create a new fabricated image of Eritrea
in the business of piracy. It introduces the idea of a lawless-nation and
people. It diminishes the serenity Eritrean waters enjoy. To his credit Mr.
Plaut cites intelligence reports to exonerate himself. However, if that is the
only standard required to indict a country for piracy, the BBC’s credibility
must be questioned and scrutinized. Because this is precisely what the Bush
Administration did to make the case for war against Iraq.
The media led by New York Times reported unsubstantiated information that
linked chemicals and nuclear materials to the hands of Sadam Hussein without
providing hard evidence using reporters who decided to go along and get paid
by reporting erroneous information. As a result many Iraqis lost their livelihood,
destroyed the country and lost untold number of lives and innocent children.
Abrogating his
journalistic responsibility and the basic motto of the BBC foundation, “to
bring world to the UK
and the UK to
the world,” Martin Plaut’s report missed opportunity to bring Somalia
and her issues to the UK
in its entirety. Instead, he squandered his time on a PR game against Eritrea
by accusing Eritrea
for being accessory to the act of piracy.
This is a
continuation of one of the many failed strategies concocted by Dr. Janday
Frazer and Meles Zenawi such as the failed attempt to label Eritrea
a State sponsor of terror. It is agenda driven journalism with a personal
tint. It is an open secret that Mr. Plaut pals-around with the most hardened
anti Eritrean Government elements beyond his journalistic duties. Mr. Plaut
deprived the UK
information by denying them the true picture of the situation in
contradiction to reports by many credible sources. Here is a quote from a Nov
20th Economist magazine article that contradicts Mr. Plaut assertions and
fabrication, “Anarchy in Somalia,
The lawless Horn.”
"In
Somalia in 2006, however, the Bush administration tried something different:
war by proxy. It gave a green light for Ethiopia to invade Somalia. The plan
was for Ethiopia to squash an Islamist movement and reinstate a Somali
government that had lost control of most of its territory. Two years on, the
plan has backfired. Abdullahi Ahmed, Somalia’s increasingly notional
president, admitted on November 15th that a variety of Islamist insurgents
once again dominate most of the country, leaving only two cities, Mogadishu
and Baidoa, in the hands of his increasingly notional government. Neither
Ethiopia nor the African Union ever sent enough soldiers to impose order.
Worse, the strongest of the insurgent groups, the Shabab, is even more
radical than the Islamic Courts movement which the Americans and Ethiopians
originally took on. It is suspected of being linked by money to the pirates
(who hand over a slice of the ransom in return for protection) and by
ideology to al-Qaeda.” economist.com
Martin Plaut
is an associate fellow with the Royal Institute of International Affairs and
editor with the BBC World Service. He is Associate Fellow of Chatham House.
The Chatham House is a sister program to The Council on Foreign Relation in
the US. In a
nut-shell, they are tasked at framing issues and opinions around the world
with their agenda in perspective.
In light of the
debacle in Iraq
by Bush and Blair duo, it is incumbent on the people of UK
to ask the BBC and BBC World Service; is this best that you can do? Is this
what the people in the United Kingdom
deserve? Or is this the true agenda of the FCO/State Department? These
questions deserve answers. They deserve answers for clarity, to establish
accountable reporting and affirm standards of higher integrity.
The World has a long
memory and remembers the British Empire, the legacy of
British Colonial and Slavery past. Globalization doesn’t invite for a broken
world, it invites integration with all parts functioning. If the US
sneezes the world gets flu and conversely if Somalia
is beset by piracy, world trade will be affected with spiraling domino
implications to societies around the globe. Globalization doesn’t invite
hegemony it works by cooperation and mutual benefit-sharing ideals. It could
only succeed when the world powers realize this is a new World-order, indeed.
But not the one George Bush one envisioned. It is a natural process that
ought to incorporate the true principles of free markets without coercion or
duress.
In a recent HARDtalk interview with US Assistant Secretary
of State for African Affairs Janday E Frazer, Stephen Sackur asked the
questions that needed to be asked of the Bush Administration’s engagement
with Africa. He conducted the interview in the spirit
of true journalism by challenging claims. It was refreshing to see and it
makes one wonder why Mr. Plaut sold the British audience short by providing
them a fabricated story? The UK
must ask, why the discrepancy? Is Martin Plaut corrupt-ed or it is the
system?
This has been a year of change in both the US
and UK
because people collectively and spontaneously rejected the hegemonies pushed
by President Bush and Prime Minister Blair. Their agendas were exposed as a
result of their failures in Iraq.
But their adventures came with a heavy-price-tag in terms of precious
lives-lost, world peace, financial meltdowns, instability, and diplomatic
loss of credibility. They sold-out business advantages to China
by employing aggressive military-based-diplomacy in the Horn of Africa and
helped to create animosity towards the West with negative implications for
the future relations.
Both leaders embraced Meles Zenawi and leaders that are
corrupt in an effort to accomplish their agenda against the wish of the
people even after Meles lost the election. Martin Plaut represents that
failed policy. He helped pursue and sell the agenda ignoring the basic
ethical-principles of journalism. He became a PR point man in the region
using his connections with Chatham House and the like to frame opinions
against Eritrea
rather than giving the British people an accurate picture of the region in a
balanced approach. Reporters like Martin Plaut give the profession of
journalism a black eye by destroying its credibility. The UK
must ask the BBC and BBC World Service to take part in this change. The BBC
is too important to carry the burden Mr. Plaut represents and needs to hold
him accountable in order to help restore credibility. The BBC needs to help
restore the faith of the people of Eritrea
and many around the globe. The world needs the BBC to play a positive role.
In addition the BBC needs to take appropriate action with Mr. Plaut in order
sanitize the profession and to take a fresh approach. In that spirit all
concerned must exert due pressure to see that done!
|