The UK has backed the US in supporting Juan Guaidó, head of the parliament in Venezuela, against the elected President Nicolás Maduro. Even if Maduro fixed the election it is a short-circuit to go from there to intervention – as we have now.
The UK’s Foreign Secretary has said: “This regime has done untold damage to the people of Venezuela, 10% of the population have left Venezuela such is the misery they are suffering”. “Regime” is a keyword. Despite doubts over the integrity of the recent elections in Venezuela the current President still has more claims on democracy than, say, the leaders of Saudi Arabia who we are unlikely to find the UK Foreign Secretary calling a “regime” (bad for business). “Regime” legitimises intervention. And we know where that ends up… Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya. No stand-out success stories there. Just lots of corpses.
As for people leaving because of the economic problems caused by the “regime”. It may be true that the government is partly responsible for the economic crisis in Venezuela. However; US sanctions have played a significant part. These sanctions include prohibitions on US citizens financing government debt or investment in the state oil company in Venezuela. The effect of this will have been to make oil production more expensive which means in turn less government revenue. The crisis, the “misery”, which Jeremy Hunt cites as a reason to conduct a regime change operation in Venezuela is in fact something which has (at least partly) been caused by them. (US and UK are synonymous in Foreign Policy terms). An enormous lie. And one which will most likely pass by 100% unquestioned by the media – as it does, for example, in this Guardian article.
I don’t normally watch the BBC at all. I watched the news at 10.00 tonight.
It was a barrage of extremely crude propaganda.
The Swedish Democratic party has made gains in the Swedish elections. The party was repeatedly described as “far right”. No mention of the huge demographic changes in Sweden in recent years brought about by immigration. I.e a party which has, inevitably, arisen in response to real social changes is sidelined by the BBC as “far right”.
Then on Syria. The report was said to have been made on the Turkish side of the border so we can assume that the footage of White Helmets ‘rescuing’ someone was provided by them. I didn’t see any disclaimers. No mention of the fact that the White Helmets are funded by the UK Foreign Office. The narration referenced the emotive statements about “more babies than terrorists in Idlib” made by Britain’s UN representative. A political regime change project of the British state (the ‘White Helmets’) provide the pictures and the British representative at the UN the words. If this isn’t state propaganda what is?
Then onto North Korea. The BBC reports that ICBMs were absent from a recent parade. In a confused piece of language the reporter tried to make this gesture into something sinister – North Korea is hiding their missiles – but we know they are there. Then there is a claim that the BBC was “not invited” to the parade. Did they ask to go? Based on this non-invitation the BBC then rounds off its story with interviews with two North Korean defectors.
All this is silly and absolutely transparent propaganda. Probably worse than anything North Korea puts out.
Yet people swallow it ..
The New Observer is in the process of moving from a hosted WordPress site to a site on WordPress.com.
Please bear with us during this transition period – some links may not work. We are working to fix everything, but it may take some time, as the editor only has a limited amount of time available for this work. Thank you for your patience.