Friends, I see great hope in the recent rejection of the proposed EU constitution by the people of France and Holland. I have also been watching with considerable interest how these developments are being reported in various media outlets. It seems to me that this can provide us with very useful case studies both in propaganda, and in grassroots awakening. What I'd like to do, over the next few days, is to post one media article per day on this topic, along with my own commentary. One of the things I hope to show is that a great deal of useful information can be gleaned from propaganda statements. Let me put it this way: when they try to cover up an elephant with a blanket of propaganda, the blanket inevitably takes on the shape of the concealed elephant. Furthermore, when they go to all this trouble, we find out which elephants they are most afraid of. As regards who "they" are: following this sequence I'll be posting an essay on "Who are the elites?" This will be a new section of the book, and something I should have written a long time ago. For our first media item, here's an article BBC published on the same day as the French Non vote. My commentary follows the article, and I re-quote there each selection I'm commenting on. So if you get bored by the article, you can jump to the end without losing context. rkm -------------------------------------------------------- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4552937.stm What 'Non' means Analysis By Kirsty Hughes Writer on European and international affairs Europe's politicians were right to be nervous about the outcome of the French referendum on the EU's constitution. The No from France is likely to plunge the EU into an unprecedented crisis. It reflects a variety of factors: * Dissatisfaction with the current French government * Worries (mostly misplaced) that the constitution moves the EU in an "Anglo-Saxon" direction economically * General concerns at the development of the EU, especially a perceived reduction of France's influence in the enlarged Union * Concerns at possible future membership of Turkey in the EU. But whatever the mixture of reasons, the French "No" means that, for the first time, a large founder member has directly opposed the current process of European integration. Before now, no EU treaty signed by all member governments has been left unratified - another first that is now on the cards. But the French "No" also means that one of the fundamental aims of the new EU constitution has failed: bringing the EU closer to its publics. France and the EU face a tough political challenge: how to respond to the French public - how to find a way to get French support for either the current or any future version of the Union after the rejection of today's Europe. More votes? The immediate choice facing the EU's leaders is whether to continue with the ratification process elsewhere - as has happened in previous cases when the Danes and later the Irish said "No". There may be sharp differences of view here: the UK which takes over the EU presidency at the end of June is likely to want to declare the constitution dead in the water, to get off the hook of its own referendum due in 2006. But many other member states are keen to carry on with ratification. As Krzystof Bobinski of the Unia & Polska Foundation in Warsaw comments, "a lot of the smaller member states are saying, 'Why should France take the decision for everyone?' " While he admits that in Poland itself many will be glad to see the back of the constitution, he thinks the likely "mother of all crises" would be very damaging for the EU. "Poland needs safe harbours," he says. "Not harbours where the French dismantle the harbour walls as soon as Poland sails in." France itself will have considerable influence in deciding whether ratification continues elsewhere, since it will have to assess whether there is any chance to ask the French to vote again, as the Danes and Irish did, though this looks fairly unlikely. 'Core' Europe It has been argued that France and Germany will react by moving ahead with long discussed plans to create a so-called "core" Europe, leaving behind the British and other sceptical countries who hesitate on political integration. But to launch "core" Europe out of desperation and crisis rather than strong political dynamism looks like a recipe for failure. Nor is it clear what a core Europe would do or indeed whether its membership would be much less than the current EU of 25, so undermining the whole point of a small "core". In the short-run, France may lose political capital in the EU, having failed to deliver its public's support. But it may find itself in the position of the British in the late 1990s, when it was thought the UK would soon have a euro referendum: in that case France, like the UK did, could argue that EU decisions must take more account of French concerns to woo back the French voter. Gridlock But other countries have voters to placate too. An EU in crisis and one where there is more focus all round on national concerns and less on pan-European compromise will be one where decisions could get increasingly difficult for the foreseeable future - from budget agreements to decisions on future enlargements (although the Bulgaria and Romania enlargement treaty is already signed). It would be better to go back to the drawing board with the aim of producing a much more understandable accessible text An EU gridlocked and inward-looking at a time of major international challenges is a likely outcome. Another key issue will be whether the EU goes ahead with membership negotiations with Turkey in the autumn, or whether it reneges on a major international commitment. The two biggest decisions of the enlarged EU of 25 members have been agreeing the constitution and the deal with Turkey on negotiations. If the enlarged Union fails on both, its record of achievements will be reduced almost to nil. Some suggest the EU could take some of the key parts of the constitution - an EU foreign minister, new voting arrangements, the European Council presidency - and push these through separately. But not only are these things at the heart of the constitution, making it a rather cynical exercise to push ahead, it also means what is left out is all the hard work done to clarify, simplify and make more consistent current EU structures. Better would be to go back to the drawing board with the aim of producing a much more understandable accessible text: but for now this looks the least likely outcome. Kirsty Hughes is a former senior fellow of the Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/europe/4552937.stm Published: 2005/05/29 21:13:09 GMT © BBC MMV -------------------------------------------------------- rkm commentary> Let's start with this selection: The No from France is likely to plunge the EU into an unprecedented crisis. It reflects a variety of factors: * Dissatisfaction with the current French government * Worries (mostly misplaced) that the constitution moves the EU in an "Anglo-Saxon" direction economically * General concerns at the development of the EU, especially a perceived reduction of France's influence in the enlarged Union * Concerns at possible future membership of Turkey in the EU. Here we see the outline of the basic propaganda spin, a spin that we will see repeated in other articles to come. The very fact that the same spin shows up in several media outlets, in different nations, tells us something about the nature of the global media machine. Who is the author, Kirsty Hughes? She's someone who was willing - either out of her own beliefs or in pursuit of her career - to write what the BBC spinners wanted written. If she hadn't been willing, they could easily have found someone else. Journalists are not the primary perps when it comes to propaganda. Responsible journalists are in fact the first victims: they must choose between prostituting themselves or else suffering in their careers. There are three main themes being introduced in the selection above. The first is to try to interpret the vote as a domestic affair, related to internal French politics, and not really reflecting sentiment on the EU. The second is to try to interpret the vote as reflecting right-wing, reactionary sentiment - i.e., a desire for French nationalist influence, and a fear of non-Christian, dark-skinned people coming into the EU. The third, and the most important, theme is to downplay as much as possible the really important issues: economic neoliberalism and globalization. We can see how important this deception is to elites by the inclusion of the parenthetical comment, "mostly misplaced", and by the use of the quoted phrase, "Anglo Saxon", as the label for the economic issue. Thus we are notified, right up front, that we should dismiss any notion that neoliberalism is a real issue - and we are told that those who say it is an issue are in fact expressing anti-American and anti-British sentiments, tying this theme back into the second theme. Let's take this selection next: France and the EU face a tough political challenge: how to respond to the French public - how to find a way to get French support for either the current or any future version of the Union after the rejection of today's Europe. Here we see spin of a quite different kind than those in the first selection. In the first selection, we were seeing examples of disinformation. Here we are seeing what I would call "dis-identification". That is to say, the writer is trying to get us to look at events through elite eyes, rather than our own. From the perspective of us, the people, a French No vote is something we should take seriously. If the people of France voted No overwhelmingly, and if we believe in democracy, then we should listen to them and take their views seriously. They are the people and they have spoken. This is especially true, as in this case, when the propaganda leading up to the vote was all contrary to the outcome. If the people succeeded in voting against the propaganda barrage, that indicates deep popular sentiment. But from the perspective of elites, there is no concern for democracy. Rather than listening to the people, the recommended response is to seek a way to get the people to change their minds. This is the perspective we are being invited to adopt. As a reader, we can either stop reading, rejecting the propaganda, or else we can go on, implicitly accepting the writer's framing as being worthy of consideration. But who are we to question Kirsty Hughes, a "former senior fellow of the Centre for European Policy Studies"? Without strong contrary views, most readers would continue reading, not aware that their perspective has been subtly shifted to align with that of elites. Continuing... But many other member states are keen to carry on with ratification. As Krzystof Bobinski of the Unia & Polska Foundation in Warsaw comments, "a lot of the smaller member states are saying, 'Why should France take the decision for everyone?' " While he admits that in Poland itself many will be glad to see the back of the constitution, he thinks the likely "mother of all crises" would be very damaging for the EU. "Poland needs safe harbours," he says. "Not harbours where the French dismantle the harbour walls as soon as Poland sails in." Here we see themes combined. "Why should France take the decision for everyone?" and "French dismantle the harbour walls" appeals to democratic sentiments in the reader - framing the French vote as an undemocratic act, a "great power" ignoring the hopes of the poor, down-trodden Eastern European masses. At the same time, the general framing is from the viewpoint of elites, where "many will be glad to see the back of the constitution" is not something we should listen to, but rather something we only grudgingly "admit". In the short-run, France may lose political capital in the EU, having failed to deliver its public's support...[and later]... But other countries have voters to placate too. Here the elite-viewpoint theme is stated boldly. Who is France?...France is not its people - the public - but something else, something apart, something that manipulates and "delivers" its people to the EU agenda. Similarly, the job of other countries is not to listen to their people, but rather to "placate" them. This is how elites see things, and this is how the French government (and all other EU governments) behave. The writer invites us to go along. Some suggest the EU could take some of the key parts of the constitution - an EU foreign minister, new voting arrangements, the European Council presidency - and push these through separately. But not only are these things at the heart of the constitution, making it a rather cynical exercise to push ahead, it also means what is left out is all the hard work done to clarify, simplify and make more consistent current EU structures. I find this very interesting. What we are seeing here - and this is an example of gleaning real information from propaganda - is essentially an internal elite dialog. There is a real question for elites: "What should our strategic response be?" Kristy explains here two of the elite options. Notice the world "push" with respect to the first option, again demonstrating the elite disdain for democracy. Her first option, presumably, includes those items which she (as elite spokesperson) considers to be the least controversial to voters - otherwise, what would be the point of attempting to "push" them through separately? But wait, this first option is rather comprehensive! What in fact, does it leave out? In fact, the main things left out - as we shall see in the days to come - are the neoliberal economic provisions. Implicitly then, she is admitting what the real issue is. But of course that cannot be admitted openly, so she disguises the 'remainder' as "all the hard work done to clarify, simplify and make more consistent current EU structures" Pure B.S. more tomorrow, rkm -- ============================================================ If you find this material useful, you might want to check out our website (http://cyberjournal.org) or try out our low-traffic, moderated email list by sending a message to: •••@••.••• You are encouraged to forward any material from the lists or the website, provided it is for non-commercial use and you include the source and this disclaimer. Richard Moore (rkm) Wexford, Ireland "Escaping The Matrix - Global Transformation: WHY WE NEED IT, AND HOW WE CAN ACHIEVE IT ", old draft: http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/rkmGlblTrans.html _____________________________ "...the Patriot Act followed 9-11 as smoothly as the suspension of the Weimar constitution followed the Reichstag fire." - Srdja Trifkovic There is not a problem with the system. The system is the problem. Faith in ourselves - not gods, ideologies, leaders, or programs. _____________________________ cj list archives: http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=cj newslog list archives: http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=newslog _____________________________ Informative links: http://www.indymedia.org/ http://www.globalresearch.ca/ http://www.greenleft.org.au/index.htm http://www.MiddleEast.org http://www.rachel.org http://www.truthout.org http://www.williambowles.info/monthly_index/ http://www.zmag.org http://www.co-intelligence.org ============================================================
Share: