Pacific Free Press was launched in March 2007 by Dutch-Canadian Richard
Kastelein of V.O.F. Expathos, in the Netherlands along with Chris Cook- CFUV radio journalist and Editor in Chief of Pacific Free Press. Cook is based in , Victoria, British Columbia.
The site is a sister to Atlantic Free Press and Brick Ogden an American Expatriate in Amsterdam has been a key supporter of this project.
The mission of Pacific Free Press is simple: to dig out nuggets of truth from
the slag-heap of lies, ignorance and witless diversion that has buried
public discourse today. Pacific Free Press provides a new venue for
disseminating hard news and insightful, fact-based analysis of the
harsh realities too often ignored or distorted by the mainstream press.
The Media on ‘Global Terror’
by William Bowles Y‘know it’s amazing really, considering that for centuries Europeans have been invading other countries, enslaving their peoples, ripping off their resources and in the process impoverishing much of the planet. And what is more, moving in and taking up residence without so much as a ‘by your leave’ let alone being put through an intensive examination upon their arrival.
Inevitably therefore, a time would come when through sheer force of circumstances, the descendants of our former overseas possessions would make the hazardous and brave trek to these shores in search of a better life or even to save their lives, largely as a result of the economic policies pursued by the West.
In what are regarded as better times, our former colonial
subjects were even ‘welcome’—that is to say, their bodies were. The
reception they got however was, to put it mildly, less than cordial for
'the loyal subjects of the Dominion'.
Five centuries of
colonialism and imperialism have left a legacy of a deeply ingrained
racism which expresses itself at every level of society but which is
most insidiously expressed by the state and its mouthpieces, the
corporate and state-run media.
Taken as individual expressions,
they appear to be innocuous, or at least not directly offensive but
when viewed contextually, that is to say as visible articulations of
official policy, their impact over time reinforces whatever prejudices
people have already absorbed.
Take for example the following
quote from Channel 4 News (10/7/07) about the siege of the Red Mosque
in Islamabad, Pakistan made by Jon Snow as he allegedly reported on
events there. Snow tells us that Pakistan is,
“a breeding ground for global terror”
There
are so many implications embedded in these six word that they need to
be exposed for what they are: inflammatory and racist and simply untrue.
On
what did Snow base his unequivocal utterance that Pakistan is “a
breeding ground for global terror”? Well we learned nothing from the
‘news’ report, for Snow failed to mention that the
Pakistani dictatorship of Musharaff is a client of both the US and the
UK, that it is supported financially by both states as well as being
the recipient of arms and other strategic support. In a deal worth $5
billion,
“On June 28 [2006], the Pentagon detailed plans to
provide Pakistan with 36 F-16C/D combat aircraft, an assortment of F-16
engines and upgrade kits, and thousands of bombs and missiles,
including 500 advanced air-to-air missiles. Describing Pakistan as a
“vital ally” the Pentagon stated the arms would be used in fighting
terrorists, such as al Qaeda.” — ‘Pakistan, Saudi Arabia Cleared for
U.S. Arms Buys’, Arms Control Association Website, September 2006
Thus,
if Pakistan is indeed a “breeding ground for global terror” then it is
the US and UK who are directly responsible for it being so. The terror
however, is that of the state which tortures and
‘disappears’ its opponents and is directly
implicated in support for Kashmiri separatists not to mention
it’s involvement with the Taliban and the CIA and MI6 in all
kinds of dirty deeds.
“Soon after New Labour came to power in
1997, the then Foreign Secretary Robin Cook announced an "ethical
dimension" to foreign policy. He said that the Government "will not
issue an [arms] export licence if there is a clearly identifiable risk
that the intended recipient would use the proposed export aggressively
against another country" or if there was a threat to "regional
stability.”” — ‘How Britain's Armaments Fuel War And Poverty’ by John
Pilger
But talk is cheap. The then foreign secretary Jack Straw
in July 2002 defended the decision to resume arms sales to Musharraf’s
dictatorship (and what an irony the statement is in the light of
present-day events!)
“…we are not a pacifist country and I do
not believe that we would make the world a safer place by Britain not
being involved in defence expenditure here nor in responsible defence
exports”, — BBC News Website, 9 July, 2002.
As a point of fact,
UK laws banned the sale of weapons to countries where they could be
used for internal repression or external aggression but as Straw said,
“We have clear criteria predicated on the basis that we will only export arms when the criteria are met.”
But Straw added that the criteria needed changing because they did
“not take full account of a very fast changing situation”.
Easy come, easy go eh.
But
there is also the issue of Snow’s use of the phrase “global terror”. Is
there such a thing? The phrase “global terror” evokes the vision of an
organised network of international terrorists, able to coordinate
attacks anywhere on the planet, but is there any proof of the existence
of such a network? None that I or anybody else knows about.
And
where is the evidence that Pakistan is a “breeding ground” for the
non-existent “global terror” network? Snow was not forthcoming, instead
the bulk of his report concerned whether or not Musharraf’s
dictatorship could survive the latest crisis, unless of course Snow was
referring to the US and the UK’s continuing support for Musharraf as
the source of the problem, but as this aspect was not referred to, we
can only assume that Snow was linking the internal struggles of
Pakistan to the illusory “global terror network”.
The phrase
also reveals a set of assumptions about Pakistan, itself the result of
Britain’s imperial machinations on the Indian sub-continent.
Given
the fact that there is a substantial population of British citizens of
Pakistani descent, Snow’s ‘throwaway’ comment has serious
ramifications, especially when one takes into account the demonisation
of Muslims in the UK by both the government and the media which taps
directly into five centuries of imperial rule which assumes the moral
superiority of Western ‘civilisation’ and ‘inferiority’ of a culture
that has been in continuous existence for over 5000 years.
Snow’s
‘throwaway’ comment contains an entire universe of prejudices and
assumptions and as such is an essential element in a propaganda war
that reinforces attitudes about ‘them’—the ‘other’ and directly
contributes to creating a climate of fear by linking the latest
amateurish attempt at bombing in London and Glasgow by a group of
people (10 or 12 in all), most of whom are in any case of Indian, not
Pakistani descent, but why quibble, ‘they’ all look alike don’t 'they'.
Postscript
Since
writing this, the events at the Red Mosque in Islamabad have reached
their denouement. For those wishing to read different points of view on
the situation, I've added a bunch of links to stories that won’t be
found in the mainstream press.
Writings 
Y‘know it’s amazing really, considering that for centuries Europeans have been invading other countries, enslaving their peoples, ripping off their resources and in the process impoverishing much of the planet. And what is more, moving in and taking up residence without so much as a ‘by your leave’ let alone being put through an intensive examination upon their arrival.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
