Who's afraid of Hugo Chávez?

Dear David Lehmann,

I have just read your “Why we should bother about Chavez and his politics” on the Financial Times.

You start your piece with a question: “Who is afraid of Hugo Chavez?”

It is clear from what you write that you are afraid. But judging both from what you write and the reality in Venezuela and South America, it seems you are afraid not of Hugo Chavez but of democracy and social justice. It doesn’t surprise I read your article on the Financial Times, a paper obviously not too concerned for those hundreds of millions of people exploited by those actors and interests that represent the core of the FT’s business.

Finally, as a new Christopher Columbus, you show the way: “This is where Europe can play a creative role”.

In that part of the world, Europe is “playing a creative role” since A.D. 1492, genocide after genocide, war after war. I think it’s time to stop being so “creative” and leave people and peoples live their lives as they wish.

President Chavez and his excellent work in defence of democracy and social justice is just one example in today’s world’s panorama, where more and more people organize, demand rights and resist injustice and violence brought to them by a very well “creative” consortium of state-corporate interests. If you need to know these interests by name, please ask the FT.

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

Chávez in London: Welcome Mr. President

We warmly welcome President Hugo Chávez in London and are proud and grateful that London's Mayor Ken Livingstone is receiving President Chávez as a friend.

An excellent article by John Pilger on Chávez and Venezuela:

Chávez is a threat because he offers the alternative of a decent society, John Pilger, The Guardian, Saturday May 13, 2006

Iraq Body Count - NOT JUST NUMBERS!

On 8 May 2006 on Channel 4 documentary, 'Iraq - The Hidden Story' - Channel 4's journalist Jon Snow said:

"According to the most authoritative source, something like 35,000 lives have been lost in the last 3 years." (With the caption: Source - Iraq Body Count - www.iraqbodycount.net)

Jon Snow is talking over the images of a car bombing. So, who's responsible for the "lives [that] have been lost in the last 3 years." ?

Iraq Body Count Co-Founder and Oxford Research Group's Executive Director John Sloboda was on CNN on July 19, 2005:

Joining us now from London is IraqBodyCount.net co-founder, John Sloboda. He is also co-author of a new book, "A Dossier of Civilian Casualties in Iraq 2003-2005."

Certainly, the research is there, John. I don't think anyone doubts that. What's the most surprising thing from your latest compilation?

JOHN SLOBODA, AUTHOR, "DOSSIER OF CIVILIAN CASUALTIES IN IRAQ": Well, one of the things which has really, I think, shocked a lot of us is the fact that since the end of the invasion back in May 2003, there has been a steady, month-on-month increase in the number of civilians killed by anti-occupation forces, insurgents and crime. So that there were double the numbers kill in the second year of the occupation than there were in the first.

HOLMES: And who's doing the killing, John?

SLOBODA: Well, currently, the vast majority of killing is being done by anti-occupation insurgents, criminals and unknown agents. We just don't know who a lot of them are.

That is a complete reversal from the situation in the beginning of the conflict, when, of course, in the first six-week phase of the war, the vast majority of deaths were caused by U.S. bombs and aerial raids.

Mr. Sloboda's words are in total contradiction with the findings of the "Lancet study":

On 29 October 2004, the British medical journal The Lancet published ‘Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey’:

Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths. (Interpretation)

Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. (Findings)

Source: Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey, The Lancet, Published online October 29,2004

This study reads:

"The researchers found that the majority of deaths were attributed to violence, which were primarily the result of military actions by Coalition forces. Most of those killed by Coalition forces were women and children... Eighty-four percent of the deaths were reported to be caused by the actions of Coalition forces and 95 percent of those deaths were due to air strikes and artillery." ('Iraqi Civilian Deaths Increase Dramatically After Invasion', October 28, 2004)

As if this contradiction were not disturbing enough, "John Sloboda took up his appointment as Executive Director of Oxford Research Group in January 2004."

On December 2005 Oxford Research Group published "Iraqi Liberation? Towards an Integrated Strategy"

Because of this Oxford Research Group's study, Iraq Body Count Co-Founder and Oxford Research Group's Executive Director John Sloboda, who co-authored this study was expelled by the international anti-war network BRussells Tribunal.

Dear friends,
John Sloboda has been excluded from the BRussells Tribunal. Not because of the conflict about IBC, but because he's apparently heading the Oxford Research Group, a think tank. They published this report recently: http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/books/iraqiliberation.htm .
Because of this report, that is in total opposition with everything the BT stands for, he really cannot be a part of our network.
Thought I'd let you know.
Dirk.

A few days ago, independent journalist Dahr Jamail wrote:

By far and away the survey that comes closest to the true number of dead in Iraq to date was the one conducted for the Lancet. Yet even Les Roberts, the lead author of that report and one of the world's top epidemiologists with the Center for International Emergency Disaster and Refugee Studies at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said this February that there might be as many as 300,000 Iraqi civilian deaths generated by the US invasion and occupation. So as not to skew the results, it is important to note that the survey did not include areas where major combat had occurred such as Fallujah, Najaf, and Sadr City - home to roughly three million Iraqis.

Any news agency, government, or other organization reporting anything less are actively attempting to hide the level of slaughter and mayhem and thus aiding and abetting the ongoing war crimes in Iraq.

My aforementioned friend in Fallujah is both frustrated and angry that most news agencies choose not to report the number of dead in Iraq more accurately. "I know there are some organizations who claim that they have an accurate count, which is less than 40,000 dead Iraqis," he wrote me recently. He went on to reference Bush Junior, "And as if that number itself isn't shameful enough for the US and the whole world to see. Anyone claiming that low number who calls himself a humanitarian is a shameful guy."

The "man behind Iraq Body Count", John Sloboda, recently gave an interview to "responsible media" BBC:

"I think it's because we don't fit into their worldview. The hard left and the hard right, they're both utterly rigid, and the stuff that's going on in the middle, they can't handle.

They want certainty. They want something they can latch onto and say - this is what I believe.

They like the sense of being a beleaguered minority.

What's most chilling is if you look at people's allegiance to much more dangerous causes than either of our critics are adopting. This is also the mindset that draws angry young men towards terrorism. And it's ultimately self-destructive." - John Sloboda, "the man behind Iraq Body Count"

For the BBC's role in this waltz, please read "THE BBC SMEARS MEDIA LENS - an email exchange with the BBC"

Are we all under Her Majesty's military surveillance?

The BBC reports:

Home Secretary John Reid has said his new post is "daunting" and acknowledged that taxpayers should not expect Home Office systems to "cock up"... The former defence secretary - who was given the Home Office post in Friday's Cabinet reshuffle - said he also had a lot to learn about other topics such as policing and victims' rights. He said the challenge ahead was a daunting one, but added: "I've never shirked a challenge and I'm eager to get down to business."

The same BBC also reports:

Meanwhile, in a further sign of a backlash against Mr Blair's Cabinet reshuffle, it has emerged a health minister has quit over NHS reforms.

It was initially thought Jane Kennedy had been sacked in Mr Blair's reshuffle but she told the Observer she quit due to concern about the impact on her local children's hospital of the changes.

She also felt she was not free to express her opinions, she told the newspaper.

And of course, let's keep an eye on the "Foreign Policy":

"Tehran's ultra-conservative male leadership may soon discover her inner political steeliness, perhaps appropriate to an industrial metallurgist."

Should we be worried?

Dear David Usborne,

In “The Big Question: Should we be worried by the rise of the populist left in South America?” (the Independent, 4 May 2006) you ask many questions and give these questions your own answers.

While I’m not impressed by your answers, I am very interested in the questions you chose to build your article.

YOUR “BIG QUESTION”: “Should we be worried by the rise of the populist left in South America?”

YOUR FIRST QUESTION: “How far-reaching is the populist left tilt in Latin America?”

YOUR SECOND QUESTION: “How much can this disrupt the world's energy supplies?”

YOUR THIRD QUESTION: “Are the populist policies of Chavez and Morales economically sustainable?”

YOUR FOURTH QUESTION: “With leaders such as these, is Latin America heading towards collapse?”

YOUR FIFTH QUESTION: “Is the rise of the popular left Bush's fault, and what should be done?”

From “your questions” you then easily reach “your conclusion”:

“Additionally, however, there is a sense across Latin America that George Bush, distracted by terrorism and Iraq, has failed to pay sufficient attention to his neighbours to the south. Washington now finds itself largely powerless to halt the shift to the left in these countries. Indeed, if it tried, the backlash would surely only get worst.

At least, however, the US and Europe might be expected to demonstrate a greater willingness to bolster those Latin governments that may be leftist in their roots but not populist in their policies.”

Since the first half of the XIX Century, the United States regards Central and South America as its own backyard. Since President Monroe and even more with President Roosevelt and his successors, the United States - to use your words – did “pay sufficient attention to his neighbours to the south.” So much so that in 1986 the International Court of Justice condemned the United States for illegal use of force against Nicaragua. What happened after that International Court of Justice’s ruling shows even better the US’ “attention to his neighbours to the south.” It’s publicly available information and there are very detailed history books; it wouldn’t be too difficult to take a look if one decided to tell the truth.

I don’t need to go back to the coups, military dictatorships, tortures, rapes, mass killings, desaparecidos and much more (like the first ‘September 11’, much cruel and ‘evil’ but not that notorious on the pages of the Western press). Just take a look at the Western hemisphere’s map. Each country in Central and South America shares a history of US’ benevolence, in your words “attention to his neighbours to the south.”

And every time on the Western liberal press there has always been an article, a comment, an editorial or some other piece of propaganda, “The Big Question: Should we be worried by the rise of the populist left in ...........................?”

Mountains of corpses, misery and unspeakable human sufferance is still there, replying your rhetorical question: NO, WE SHOULD NOT!

But we should be, and indeed are much worried by just another example of travesty of journalism.

Thank you for your time.

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

***

Dear David Usborne,

I have read on Media Lens’ message board your replies to Media Len’s co-editor David Cromwell.

I am curious about one point.

In the first reply you write:

“I had a torrent of mostly angry letters this morning about the Big Question piece.”

In your second reply, you write:

“What is odd here, I realize, is that all the emails sent to me today posed almost exactly the same challenges to the piece, as if this was a coordinated response. I hope that's not the case, because that would make things much less interesting.”

I sent you too an email about that article. As you could read, there is no anger at all in it. Was really that torrent made “mostly [by] angry letters” ? Or did you use the words “angry letters” simply to describe disagreement with the arguments in your article? You could simply ignore the angry letters and to kindly reply those with rational arguments and polite tone.

What I find very interesting is that many people took the time to write to you about your article. Also interesting is that apparently so many people (the “torrent”) disagree with what you wrote and – as I did in my email – send you their thoughts and comments. Shouldn’t this interaction please you and make you glad that your readers take you seriously enough to engage in honest, rational and polite discussion?

I find this quite extraordinary, much more so because of what we read on the pages of sophisticated newspapers where every other day someone laments the social and political apathy of the population.

A few months ago the Guardian’s Readers’ Editor, Ian Mayes, described Media lens as an “electronic lobby group”. (If interested you may read my correspondence with Mr Mayes here)

Now you write about a “coordinated response... that would make things much less interesting”.

I wonder why for some people the idea of democracy is so difficult to understand, acknowledge, accept and respect.

I would be very interested in your views on this subject and of course I would still appreciate if you could reply my first email (underneath) about your article.

Thank you for your time and kindness.

Best regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

THE BBC SMEARS MEDIA LENS - an email exchange with the BBC

Dear Peter [Barron, BBC's Newsnight's Editor],

I hope all is well.

I am writing about “Virtual war follows Iraq conflict”, By David Fuller, BBC News

Kindly and politely could I invite you to read (or read again) today Media Lens’ alert: MAELSTROM OF VITRIOL - THE BBC SMEARS MEDIA LENS

A few days ago you wrote: "Another organisation that tries to influence our running orders is Medialens... In fact I rather like them. David Cromwell and David Edwards, who run the site, are unfailingly polite, their points are well-argued and sometimes they're plain right."

I can’t understand how you can write the above and at the same time saying about Fuller’s article: “I believe the piece is a fair and even-handed account of the dispute” (your email to ML’ editors)

It would be an oxymoron. Do you agree?

Thank you once again for your time and kindness.

Best wishes,
Gabriele Zamparini

PS I saw another (would seem) oxymoron in your replies. You may read this one on here: link

***

Dear Gabriele,

Thanks for your email.

I don't see inconsistency in any of those comments.

David Cromwell and David Edwards have always been polite to me.

They have been leading a campaign of criticism of IBC.

That campaign has led to what David Fuller described as a maelstrom of criticism and abuse.

I've been on the receiving end of similar criticism and recognise the description. It doesn't mean that the Davids aren't polite.

On your second example there is again no inconsistency.

David Fuller's comments on the Medialens site are his private views and do not represent the BBC or Newsnight. The BBC's policy is that employees - while able to express private views on blogs and messageboards - should not advocate particular positions on issues of current public controversy or debate. David Fuller has been reminded of this.

Best wishes

Peter

***

Thanks Peter.

In his BBC’s article, David Fuller writes:

“But for the last few months, John Sloboda and his team have found themselves in the middle of a maelstrom of criticism and vitriol. But not from the right. Their attackers have been anti-war activists.”

Interviewed by Fuller, Mr Sloboda says:

“Their behaviour is far worse than most of our right-wing or pro-war critics, who, on the whole, have behaved rather more honourably. These people, I trust them less than just about anyone else in the world, and they would have to do 50 to 100 times more in order to regain my trust. (...) I think it's because we don't fit into their worldview. The hard left and the hard right, they're both utterly rigid, and the stuff that's going on in the middle, they can't handle. They want certainty. They want something they can latch onto and say - this is what I believe. They like the sense of being a beleaguered minority. What's most chilling is if you look at people's allegiance to much more dangerous causes than either of our critics are adopting. This is also the mindset that draws angry young men towards terrorism. And it's ultimately self-destructive."

Reading Fullers’ article is clear that Mr Sloboda’s comments, remarks and accusations have influenced Mr Fuller’s point of view, so much so that he acted as a defender of Mr Sloboda and his IBC. It’s Mr. Fuller himself who tells us this in most of his posts on ML message board.

Of course you have the right to agree with Fuller (and therefore with Mr Sloboda), but you should provide factual evidence upon which you base your judgment. Lacking this factual evidence, the accusations by Mr Sloboda and BBC’s Fuller (and yours?) fall in defamation’s territory.

Once again, I politely and kindly must insist and reiterate my request for an explanation. I believe the BBC launched a brutal, biased, violent and dishonest attack against respectable people without providing proofs for its claims.

Because of the gravity of Mr Sloboda accusations, I hope you and the BBC will dedicate this matter all your attention.

Thank you very much for your time.

Best wishes,
Gabriele Zamparini

DAHR JAMAIL: "Reason for Their Death Is Known"

FROM: "Reason for Their Death Is Known" by DAHR JAMAIL

By far and away the survey that comes closest to the true number of dead in Iraq to date was the one conducted for the Lancet. Yet even Les Roberts, the lead author of that report and one of the world's top epidemiologists with the Center for International Emergency Disaster and Refugee Studies at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said this February that there might be as many as 300,000 Iraqi civilian deaths generated by the US invasion and occupation. So as not to skew the results, it is important to note that the survey did not include areas where major combat had occurred such as Fallujah, Najaf, and Sadr City - home to roughly three million Iraqis.

Any news agency, government, or other organization reporting anything less are actively attempting to hide the level of slaughter and mayhem and thus aiding and abetting the ongoing war crimes in Iraq.

My aforementioned friend in Fallujah is both frustrated and angry that most news agencies choose not to report the number of dead in Iraq more accurately. "I know there are some organizations who claim that they have an accurate count, which is less than 40,000 dead Iraqis," he wrote me recently. He went on to reference Bush Junior, "And as if that number itself isn't shameful enough for the US and the whole world to see. Anyone claiming that low number who calls himself a humanitarian is a shameful guy."