The Western
Media and African Diaspora
Amanuel Biedemariam
Africans have never attained control of their
voices, points of view, agendas and the messages they need to convey to each
other and the international community. African voices are silent, irrelevant,
muted and dominated by international media. The majority of the continent
lack the institutional, social, governmental and technical infrastructure
needed to gather and disseminate information that can promote, protect and
defend African interest. The whole continent is at a disadvantage because it
lacks the basic understanding of public relations and how it is used.
Therefore, African image, news and views are shaped and defined by others in
accordance with their interests while Africans remain idle!
This is a result of a sustained battering of
the civil structures, violent political leadership changes, wars, repressive
leaders, lack of resources and expertise. Africans deserve a good chunk of
the blame. However, the main reason Africa suffers
this serious deficit is because of its colonial legacies, the cold war, and
international actors that assert undue negative influence.
Colonialism stymied media development in Africa
creating a structural deficit. During the cold war, in order to control
information, the two superpowers controlled the airwaves as well as the
propaganda machinery that bombarded Africans relentlessly rendering
indigenous media mute; and blocked media capacity development for decades.
For example, at the height of the cold war,
during Haile Sellassie’s reign until 1974, Ethiopia
was allied with US. The US
was able to have access and control of the airwaves from its base in Asmara,
which at that time was under Ethiopia.
The cultural war and the war for the hearts-and-minds the US
waged were effective on attuning Ethiopians into the American culture and way
of life. That changed after Mengistu Hailemariam came to power by ousting
Haile Sellassie. From 1974 until 1991 Ethiopia
was a key ally of the USSR
and the airwaves in Ethiopia
were saturated with communist propaganda. That was typical for many countries
in Africa at the time; they were caught on a ping pong
that debilitated media development.
After the cold war, the sole super power, US,
controls the global information, media and PR wars. The US
with her key allies, UK,
Germany, France
and other Western countries control major portion of the information
disseminated around the world. With mammoth news agencies like the BBC,
Deutsche Welle, AFP, VOA and other outlets, they essentially dominate the
international information and news networks. The BBC online annual budget alone
could equal the total annual media budget of twenty small African countries
combined. The budgets these countries allot in order to control message,
news, media information, and disinformation, propaganda and PR wars is so
large that it will be impossible for any one nation to compete. One
department, like the Pentagon in the US
alone, has the technical, logistical, human, financial and institutional
superiority over any organization or a nation. They have the skilled
personal, coordination amongst the various international organizations,
cohesive message dissemination strategies in place and the leadership
necessary to put any message in motion expeditiously and as needed.
Their agendas mirror each other. Whatever the UK
wants to achieve in Zimbabwe
is supported by the US.
Conversely, whatever the US
pushes in Darfur is supported by France,
UK and other
Western countries overtly because they are intent on showing a unified view
in order to exert power.
The whole idea behind their media strategies
hinges on framing issues and forwarding their agendas irrespective of the
facts on the ground! They are not concerned about truth, journalistic
integrity, forwarding the agendas of the international community, or how the
rule of law is being applied because their sole purpose is to forward their
agendas.
They “may” deliberately give the appearance of
balance but it is far from that. There are many examples, but one show in
particular caught my attention.
On Wednesday
July 8 2009, the BBC African program “Have Your Say” aired a show
about Somalia.
This is how the BBC advertised the program on their website:
“Is Eritrea
becoming a destabilizing force?” “Today on Africa Have Your Say put
your questions at 1600 GMT to Kenyan Foreign Minister Moses Watangula,
Eritrean Ambassador to Brussels Girma Asmerom and author Michela Wrong.”
A seemingly innocent show programmed to
explore the issues in Somalia.
However, it is a loaded statement presented in that manner to frame the issue
that Eritrea
is a key reason for the instability in Somalia.
But that is a total misrepresentation of the history and facts on the ground.
For starters, a relative stability reigned in Somalia
for a brief period in 2006 courtesy of the Islamic Court Union. That was
quickly dashed because the US
decided to invade Somalia
in order to get rid of the ICU and dispatched Ethiopia
into Somalia.
That turned into carnage because Ethiopian soldiers mowed civilian
populations killing thousands of Somalis. The Human Rights Watch and others have
accused the mercenary Meles Regime in Ethiopia
of genocide and crimes against humanity. That is a fact. The US and Ethiopia
are the key actors in Somalia.
Kenya, Djibouti
and African organizations play a complimentary role by buttressing US
positions.
Here is one reason why the whole charade is a
reach. Somalia
is surrounded by Djibouti,
Ethiopia, the
Indian Ocean and Kenya,
all key allies of the US.
The Indian Ocean is literally covered with US Navy and
other Western forces, supposedly fighting piracy. In other words, it is
difficult for Eritrea
to have the kind of impact it is accused of having because it is physically
impossible. All Eritrea asked was for the reconstitution of Somalia as a
nation, based on UN charters and as such opened her door for all Somalis to
come together and solve their own problems without duress and foreign
meddling by discussion and dialogue; a brotherly and neighborly gesture and
genuine opportunity for Somalis.
Furthermore, initially, the BBC advertised
“Kenyan Foreign Minister, Moses Watangula, Eritrean Ambassador to Brussels,
Girma Asmerom and author Michela Wrong” as guests of the show. However, once
the show started the BBC did a bait-and-switch by bringing in Ethiopia’s
minister of information Bereket Simon in place of Kenyan Foreign Minister
without telling the Eritrean Ambassador Girma Asmerom. The BBC is well
informed about the Eritrean Ethiopian conflicts because BBC covered it
extensively, plus the show was not about Eritrea
and Ethiopia.
This shows the BBC lacks integrity, respect
for Eritrean people, Africans in general and the international community. To
his credit Ambassador Girma acknowledged his dissatisfaction with how the
issue was framed. He also made it clear that he won’t debate the Information
Minister of Ethiopia
and gracefully moved on with the rest of the program to honor the audience
and defend Eritrean views from a disadvantaged position.
The truth is, the whole purpose of the July 8,
2009 BBC show was to set up stage for the United Nations Security Council
debate on Somalia, which was conducted the next day, on July 9, 2009. At the
“debate”, the US
Ambassador Susan Rice backed by UK
and France
called for sanctions on Eritrea.
This is typical and integral part of a
strategy the West uses effectively to weaken and render nations helpless to
the point of surrender, “Choking!”
The media plays a key role in this process. There is no way Eritrea
or any other country can counter an entrenched system like the one described
above because it is based on their terms. This is the strategy they applied
for decades successfully. If any nation refuses to tow-the-line the noise
gets louder by the second.
This is how African news and views is
delivered by those who push their own version in accordance with the image
they want to portray and dictated by the agenda they are pushing at that
time. For example, in 2005 the G8 states run a campaign, what they called
“make poverty history.” At that time, CNN’s Christian Amanpour went to Ethiopia
and interviewed Meles Zenawi about a new farming method they propagated.
Reuters, BBC and the main media agencies made that the only news item for
months leading up to the Live Aid concert which was also a part of their PR
campaign. That is how they remind Africans how poor and destitute they are,
and sing on Live Aid concerts to alleviate African suffering and plagues;
every four years. The talking heads like Geoffrey Sachs, Bono and Bob Geldof
pushed the idea and provided apolitical human element in support of the cause.
At the time, everything else was muted. Dissenting voices and alternative
views were not heard.
Is BBC a Credible Organization? Is the BBC
fair, judicious, balanced, and ethical organization clean from
corruption? The answer is a big NO! Then, the questions one must ask
is, why do Africans, African news outlets and African websites honor the BBC,
VOA, AFP, Reuters, and others who are set to press their own agendas at the
expense of Africans? Is it because
Africans fail to understand journalistic codes of ethics? Are Africans
gullible to the point of taking anything the BBC throws at them as long as it
doesn’t impact them personally? Is it because Africans are so accustomed to
bash their own leaders for lack of freedom of press; they convinced themselves
any information from the West is to serve their interest and the interest of
the truth? Is it because Africa lacks news outlets
that are credible? Is it apathy, carelessness, laziness, indifference or is
it all of the above?
Even when Africans are educated and understood
clearly how Western media manipulates truth; they chose not to challenge or
challenge it ineffectively. Africans have no watch-dog groups and lack the
institutions to fight media injustices. The media rights-organizations that
exist are set up to serve the interests of the West. Reporters Without
Borders is a great example because it conveniently set its mission to target
governments and never target institutions like the BBC or powerful Western
nations who directly or indirectly contribute to suppression of information
by their suspicious and malicious reporting sometimes using agenda driven
indigenous surrogates.
The key here is why were they so effective for
so long? And what can people do to stop the blatant disregard for
fairness, justice, truth and ethics? How can any nation or individual contend
with CNN, BBC and VOA, Deutche Welle or any of the major news outlets who
work together and for the same agendas with budgets much larger than many
countries?
The reason Africans are unable to make a dent
on solving their issues lies squarely on Africans. Africans are treated in
this manner because they don’t respect each other. They are corrupt! They
attack each other to serve the interests of the West. And they can’t demand
justice because they don’t try to be just themselves. Africans can’t have
their voices heard because they give undeserved credibility to the propaganda
machinery of the West and depended entirely on others to do it for them.
Moreover, Africans in the Diaspora are not organized and the organizations
that exist are organized by governmental organizations to serve their
agendas.
Africans suffer needles abuses because they
fail to speak, stand up and fight. They don’t have common understanding,
cohesive message, dedication and determination. They lack leadership,
identifiable personalities like Rev. Jesse Jackson or Rev. Al Sharpton that
can stand up for African causes. They suffer because they allowed themselves
to be exploited. Those who could stand up like the scholars and the elites
are often part of the problem because they are power hungry and used. And
they are often timid for fear of loosing their tenure and status.
What can be done?
Africans must agree on key fundamental
principles surrounding African matters and demand facts on that basis. The
fundamentals are:
- Africans deserve Peace because Peace is a basic human
right.
- Africans must be allowed to make peace and chart
their own future without outside meddling within their national
boundaries.
- For Africa to have any
stability, the existing boundaries must be respected as is, with
resources belonging to the people!
- There should be no outside force, nation or
organization imposing their will on any African nation, not even the UN!
- Nations must be allowed to foster their indigenous
governance capacity without influence from outsiders.
Moreover, there are steps individuals and
groups can do to take control. The BBC matters only if we make it matter. We
can stop listening to them, stop granting interviews and importantly, we can
stop giving them credibility by not commenting on their programs e.g. “Have
Your Say.” It is puzzling to see so
many Africans complain about lack of fairness and turn around advertise the
services of BBC, Reuters, AFP and others inadvertently by posting their
articles, news and views on African websites. When was the last time the BBC
posted articles written by African journalist or from African news sources?
Do they provide that luxury for Africans? Then, why should Africans give
their space, time, energy, attention and credibility to someone who is
possibly doing harm to them?
Information is essential to the future of Africa,
and we all know we are starting late, and that we are way behind on the media
game. The West could not be expected to pamper and protect African interests
and work against their own interest. So, we must all support each other in a
smart way by nurturing our own. The Internet could work as a great equalizer
if we use it correctly by adhering to the principles outlined above. We need
to do that for the sake of the Congolese children that are dying needless
death by the thousands every day. Therefore, educate yourselves and every one
you know in order to make a difference because Africans need-not and must-not
be hurt twice by brain-drain and being indifferent African Diaspora!
Awetnayu@hotmail.com
|
|