UTOPIA STATION PAGE 8

Price:£3

AUGUST2007

THERE’SANALTERNATIVEWORLD... IF ONLYWE CAN FIND IT Democracy’s invisible line

The US writer Noam Chomsky talks about the mechanisms behind modern communication,an essential instrument of government in democratic countries – as important to our governments as propaganda is to a dictatorship

ANTONI MÓÓRI – Falççonet i martellet (2001)

Free spirits

This August issue marks another stage in the history of Le Monde diplomatique in English (LMD). The adventure began with an internet edition, over a decade ago in February 1997; in September 1998 there came an inspired and fruitful partnership with The Guardian Weekly. That was made possible by the efforts and support of the latter’s editor, Patrick Ensor, who died on 1 July 2007. As The Guardian’sobituary noted: “He was an inspirational and tireless editor. His staff knew that in his absence his was a standard below which they did not want to fall. He worked 50 to 60 demanding hours a week. He checked everything and his staff swear that not a typo escaped him. He even made the tea and coffee when it seemed to be his turn.” He oversaw the early issues of LMD with the same energy and enthusiasm. Back then, Le Monde diplomatiquein English was available only to subscribers to The Guardian Weekly. In November 2003 we wanted to open up LMD to a wider readership and started a second print edition, by direct subscription. At the beginning of this year we added a digital edition to the collection (in PDF format, through Exact Editions). And our internet-only edition goes from strength to strength with new IP subscriptions for NGOs, university libraries and campuses. Having four separate editions of LMD proved complicated for us and for The Guardian Weekly, at a time when it too was changing. We agreed to take over the print subscriptions to Le Monde diplomatiqueoffered by The Guardian Weekly. Subscribers will continue to receive LMD in the usual way, and will be able to renew their subscriptions directly (see box on page 16). Introducing our first print issue in September 1998, Ignacio Ramonet wrote a leader called “Taking a stand”. In it, he said: “We believe that we are at a turning point in the business of providing news. Our readers are proof of this; they demand greater rigour,

more seriousness and greater reliability. They also want guidance on how to achieve real solutions to some of the world’s problems.” Since then, those needs and expectations have grown. Across the world, major newspapers are being bought up by private interests (The Wall Street Journalin the United States and the economics daily La Tribunein France), provoking fresh doubt about the objectivity of the media. The internet has become central to the provision of news and information, but its sources are often unmediated – and unedited for accuracy or brevity. This rearrangement of the media landscape is happening as the world is becoming more complex, diverse and hard to decipher. The rise of China, India, Brazil and the Gulf states demonstrates these changes. One country can no longer decide global politics and economy. China invests in Africa (and in a major British bank’s bid for a Dutch bank), India develops relations with Latin America, the Gulf states invest in southeast Asia. Russia, China and Saudi Arabia seek to play a greater role in politics; this may in time limit the manoeuvrability of the United States or even of what we like to call the West. Le Monde diplomatiquewants to give its readers a way to decode the new arrangements and understand the new realities. We cannot see the world clearly if we limit ourselves to a narrow and eurocentric vision. Our 65 international editions in 26 languages (35 editions in print, with a combined circulation of 1.5 million; 33 online) reinforce our ability and desire to make Le Monde diplomatique a really international newspaper. We know the English edition will contribute to this global vision. But though our international presence is enormous, our presence in the English-speaking world, where we face heavy competition, is not assured. For LMD to succeed, we need your support. ALAIN GRESH TRANSLATED BY WENDY KRISTIANASEN

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

The Pentagon revealed as the world’s busiest landowner page 2

The ‘civilised’ face of latter-day American destabilisation page 4

Réégis Debray lays bare Israel’s hidden agenda page 5

Morocco’s moderate Islamists heading for victory if not power page 6

Ukraine struggles to define its villains and its heroes page 10

When medicine is warped towards war page 12

France’s lethal workplaces reap a human harvest page 13

The unlearned lessons of the Indian Mutiny page 14

DANIEL MERMET IN CONVERSATION WITH NOAM CHOMSKY

DM: Let’s start with the media issue. In the May 2005 referendum on the European constitution, most newspapers in France supported a yes vote, yet 55% of the electorate voted no. This suggests there is a limit to how far the media can manipulate public opinion. Do you think voters were also saying no to the media? NC: It’s a complex subject, but the little in-depth research carried out in this field suggests that, in fact, the media exert greater influence over the most highly educated fraction of the population. Mass public opinion seems less influenced by the line adopted by the media. Take the eventuality of a war against Iran. Threequarters of Americans think the United States should stop its military threats and concentrate on reaching agreement by diplomatic means. Surveys carried out by western pollsters suggest that public opinion in Iran and the US is also moving closer on some aspects of the nuclear issue. The vast majority of the population of both countries think that the area from Israel to Iran should be completely clear of nuclear weapons, including those held by US forces operating in the region. But you would have to search long and hard to find this kind of information in the media. The main political parties in either country do not defend this view either. If Iran and the US were true democracies, in which the majority really decided public policy, they would undoubtedly have already solved the current nuclear disagreement. And there are other similar instances. Look at the US federal budget. Most Americans want less military spending and more welfare expenditure, credits for the United Nations, and economic and international humanitarian aid. They also want to cancel the tax reductions decided by President George Bush for the benefit of the biggest taxpayers. On all these topics, White House policy is completely at odds with what public opinion wants. But the media rarely publish the polls that highlight this persistent public opposition. Not only are citizens excluded from political power, they are also kept in a state of ignorance as to the true state of public opinion. There is growing international concern about the massive US double deficit affecting trade and the budget. But both are closely linked to a third deficit, the democratic deficit that is constantly growing, not only in the US but all over the western world.

DM: When a leading journalist or TV news presenter is asked whether they are subject to pressure or censorship, they say they are completely free to express their own opinions. So how does

Noam Chomsky is professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Daniel Mermet is a journalist at France Inter,Paris

thought control work in a democratic society? We know how it works in dictatorships. NC: As you say, journalists immediately reply: “No one has been exerting any pressure on me. I write what I want.” And it’s true. But if they defended positions contrary to the dominant norm, someone else would soon be writing editorials in their place. Obviously it is not a hard-and-fast rule: the US press sometimes publishes even my work, and the US is not a totalitarian country. But anyone who fails to fulfil certain minimum requirements does not stand a chance of becoming an established commentator. It is one of the big differences between the propaganda system of a totalitarian state and the way democratic societies go about things. Exaggerating slightly, in totalitarian countries the state decides the official line and everyone must then comply. Democratic societies operate differently. The line is never presented as such, merely implied. This involves brainwashing people who are still at liberty. Even the passionate debates in the main media stay within the bounds of commonly accepted, implicit rules, which sideline a large number of contrary views. The system of control in democratic societies is extremely effective. We do not notice the line any more than we notice the air we breathe. We sometimes even imagine we are seeing a lively debate. The system of control is much more powerful than in totalitarian systems. Look at Germany in the early 1930s. We tend to forget that it was the most advanced country in Europe, taking the lead in art, science, technology, literature and philosophy. Then, in no time at all, it suffered a complete reversal of fortune and became the most barbaric, murderous state in human history. All that was achieved by using fear: fear of the Bolsheviks, the Jews, the Americans, the Gypsies – everyone who, according to the Nazis, was threatening the core values of European culture and the direct descendants of Greek civilisation (as the philosopher Martin Heidegger wrote in 1935). However, most of the German media who inundated the population with these messages were using marketing techniques developed by US advertising agents. The same method is always used to impose an ideology. Violence is not enough to dominate people: some other justification is required. When one person wields power over another – whether they are a dictator, a colonist, a bureaucrat, a spouse or a boss – they need an ideology justifying their action. And it is always the same: their domination is exerted for the good of the underdog. Those in power always present themselves as being altruistic, disinterested and generous. In the 1930s the rules for Nazi propaganda

Continued on page 2