Before the 2003 Iraq War Russia, China, France and Germany opposed the US resolution to ‘legalise’ the war.
The BBC fully endorsed their stance because it opposed the war itself. No questions were ever asked about why any of these countries were opposing the resolution….was it for some humane anti-war reason or the reality…a grubby backing of a murderous dictator for commercial and geo-political reasons.
The vetos were therefore themselves ‘illegitimate’ being based upon self interest rather than wider considerations such as the desire for a peaceful and humane resolution.
If such vetos are allowed then it negates the whole purpose of the UN as a world ‘policeman’ which arbitrates world affairs through a moral and legal framework..not on whether a country has trade deals with another.
Scroll forward to the present and Russian and China are refusing to back UN resolutions that attempt to pressurise Syria to come to terms.
This time though the BBC find their opposition not to its liking and gives its backing to the ‘rebels’ which might also be considered a strange volte face….how often have we been lectured that the US helping Islamist Mujahadeen to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan lead to the creation of Al Qaeda?
Now the Islamists are flavour of the month fighting for ‘freedom’.
Peter Hitchens in the Mail spells it out.
‘This time though the BBC find their opposition not to its liking..’
It does rather highlight how £4Bpa can be deployed to shape public opinion, and hence policy, based on nothing more than the editorial whim of those ‘genetically impartial’ market rate types who control the uniquely funded edit suite.
In honest, professional hands there was still a chance of objective information and education possible. Not easy, given the FUBAR nature of that whole region and its geo-political stability, but… possible, if the basic rudiments of basic journalism where recalled and followed (Assad’s mob seem pretty dire, but the BBC has been called out… properly so… for enhancing narratives to the point of propaganda on behalf of those they favour now so often, their ‘news’ coverage has to be flagged as worthless. I have watched, with sad inevitability, various The Editors ‘we get it about right’ navel-gazing efforts first refuse to answer legitimate questions and then close when the tide of ‘why not?’ drives the latest market rate broadcast-only merchant back to the bunker of their comfy self-delusion).
What we are served is propaganda, too often now supported by censorship, especially in the face of challenge.
Not a great historical precedent when that happens.
The Palace-builders and the swah deeson liberal left like to pick and choose their wars. Kosovo was (excuse me while I howl with laughter) a liberal intervention while of course Iraq and Ghan were illegal and moral invasions.
Their stance used to depend on taking the opposite position to Dubya. Not sure what their criteria are now (nor are they).
A fair summing up of the liberal attitude. Liberals seem addicted to war if it suits their agenda. True conservatives know war is always the very last resort and should only be considered in defence of a homeland or truly vital interests. Syria is not in these categories and should be left well alone.
I’d quite like a 5 minute section on the World at One each day with foreign affairs expert Ming Campbell giving a reassuring daily update on how the UN are getting on in resolving this. Followed by John McDonnell explaining how if Syria had any oil we’d have attacked it by now.
All the support given to the various “rebels” will only lead to extremist muslim takeovers in those countries. They will be able to gain more and more power and use it to gain more power and influence in many more countries.
The resulting power base will seek to expand the muslim realm and to be able to strike at the west.
Where will this leave the BBC and their like? They will welcome it with open arms up to the point they get a knock at the door and it will be their turn to experience the muslim way.
No racism involved. Simple stated aims of the “extremists at present who will increasingly become the main steam.
Happy days.
Alan, surely you are not accusing the BBC of double standards !!!!!!!!
Syria is/was among the best of moderate secular dictatorships, considering what is on offer in the rest of the ME from Saudi Arabia and the rest. Syria is a “beacon” of freedom of opportunity for religious minorities and women (comparatively). Christians can practice their faith publicly and without fear. Women can get an education and job, drive cars and do just about anything. What exactly do the opposition MB offer?
This
Syrian Rebels Plundering and Destroying Churches
http://islamversuseurope.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/syrian-rebels-plundering-and-destroying.html
Syria is the one country that has taken hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Christians when we “liberated” Iraq. Where will they go?
I simply couldn’t go away your web site before suggesting that I extremely loved the standard info an individual provide in your guests? Is gonna be back regularly to check up on new posts
Having read this I believed it was very enlightening. I appreciate you finding the time and effort to
put this information together. I once again
find myself personally spending a lot of time both reading and posting comments.
But so what, it was still worth it!