CNN et le besoin de vertu de l’Amérique

Faits et commentaires


Il n'y a pas de commentaires associés a cet article. Vous pouvez réagir.



CNN et le besoin de vertu de l’Amérique

24 septembre 2004 — Le groupe FAIR d’analyse critique des médias (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting Media) examine le traitement fait par CNN de la déclaration de Koffi Annan sur l’illégalité de la guerre contre l’Irak. (Le texte de FAIR est reproduit ci-dessous et il est également disponible sur le site de FAIR.)

Après tout, le cas est surtout intéressant par la virulence dont il témoigne dans la défense d’un cas quasi-unanimement condamné, et cela de la part d’un organisme d’information (CNN) qui a toujours tenté de paraître “objectif”. L’illégalité de la guerre US en Irak, par ailleurs reconnue implicitement par GW et explicitement par Richard Perle comme le montre le texte, est une question qui est presque entendue, — sauf par CNN, au moins, qui juge “outrageantes” les déclarations de Koffi Annan à ce propos.

Certes, le cas est évident : pour les Américains, la question de la légalité internationale d’un acte américain est une sorte pléonasme, tout acte américain étant, par essence, l’expression de la légalité internationale. Ce qu’on mesure ici, dans la violence des propos de CNN, c’est l’importance de la bonne réputation internationale pour les Américains. Les Américains veulent être puissants, ils veulent agir sans restriction d’aucune sorte, mais ils veulent en même temps être vertueux et avoir bonne réputation. Il y a moins, dans le cas exposé ici, une volonté délibérée de mensonge qu’une trouille extrême d’avoir mauvaise réputation. La faiblesse américaine est, dans ce cas, typique des société bourgeoises modernistes et conformistes, qui ne supportent pas à la fois d’agir avec toute leur puissance et d’être observées comme agissant de la sorte. Le complexe moderniste du besoin du “droit” par opposition au refus de la responsabilité historique des actes politique, — c’est-à-dire le besoin impératif de vertu dans l’action, — joue à plein dans le comportement américain.

CNN's Dobbs Attacks Annan on Iraq War Legality

By FAIR, September 21, 2004

When U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said in a September 15 interview that he thought the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was illegal, CNN's Lou Dobbs was outraged, calling it “another incredible outburst by Kofi Annan” (9/16/04). But Dobbs and his CNN reporters neglected to pursue the most important aspect of the story: Was Annan right?

In a BBC interview, Annan said the war was “not in conformity with the Security Council, with the U.N. Charter.” When asked, “It was illegal?,” Annan replied: “Yes, if you wish,” adding: “I have indicated it is not in conformity with the U.N. Charter; from our point of view and from the Charter point of view, it was illegal.”

This did not sit well with Dobbs, whose September 16 report began: “Outrage and anger today after an astonishing statement about Iraq by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. Annan said the United States-led invasion of Iraq was illegal.”

Dobbs reported that “U.S. allies Britain and Australia immediately rejected Annan's assertion. President Bush said he has no regrets about ordering the invasion.” CNN correspondent Kitty Pilgrim's segment quoted the U.S ambassador to the United Nations, the Australian Prime Minister, a representative from the conservative Hoover Institute, and Edward Walker from the Middle East Institute, who said, “I don't understand quite what he means by legal.”

After Pilgrim's report, Dobbs continued by referring to Annan's “bizarre statement” and lamenting “the interference that was being run over the course of the past two years, in point of fact, by the Germans and the French and now the French in Iran, the Chinese in the Sudan — is, in fact, the United Nations paralyzed?” Pilgrim responded by saying that “it certainly doesn't seem to be able to move forward on certain issues. In Iraq, it seems like revisionist policy to go back to this issue in the U.N. today. It seems to have some trouble moving forward on many issues.”

Whether or not looking back two years to the origins of an increasingly violent situation is “revisionist policy” is debatable. The more important question journalistically would be whether or not Annan's comments accurately reflect international law. CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, however, didn't bother to interview international law experts about the matter. If they had, they may have found that, as the Washington Times put it (3/21/03), “Legal experts, however, are divided on the war's legality, with many saying that the existing U.N. resolutions do not go as far as to authorize the use of force.” A few days earlier, the Los Angeles Times (3/18/03) included comments from several international law experts who thought the war violated international law.

Many legal experts contend that the United Nations resolutions regarding Iraq did not give the U.S. and its allies the power to initiate war without further action from the Security Council. And the U.N. Charter does lay out specific conditions for hostile action; as Article 39 states, “The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken ... to maintain or restore international peace and security.” The Charter authorizes the use of force only if sanctioned by the Security Council, or if a country is attacked or threatened with imminent attack (Article 51): “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to

maintain international peace and security.”

But without even referring to the U.N. Charter or other standards of international law, CNN continued the discussion the following night (9/17/04) as guest anchor Kitty Pilgrim called Annan's statement “outrageous,” then added: “More controversy tonight after Kofi Annan says the war in Iraq is illegal. Critics say he is encouraging this country's enemies and putting American troops' lives at risk.” The only “critic” offered by CNN was Nile Gardiner of the right-wing Heritage Foundation.

For the record, Annan would certainly not be the first person to make such “outrageous” comments. In fact, last year the prominent neoconservative hawk Richard Perle, who serves on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, indicated that he thought that the invasion violated international law (Guardian, 11/20/03), which Perle said “would have required us to leave

Saddam Hussein alone.” Perle argued that French intransigence left the U.S. with “no practical mechanism consistent with the rules of the U.N. for dealing with Saddam Hussein,” and therefore, Perle said, “I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing.”

Perle's sentiments toward international law were in a sense echoed by George W. Bush, who mocked a question about the legality of excluding countries like Germany and France from Iraq's reconstruction (12/11/03): “International law? I'd better call my lawyer.” Bush's comments elicited little criticism, and merited only a passing mention on Lou Dobbs Tonight.

Now that Annan has brought up a substantive claim about the war's legal basis, CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight considers these statements of fact “outrageous”.

[Notre recommandation est que ce texte doit être lu avec la mention classique à l'esprit, — “Disclaimer: In accordance with 17 U.S.C. 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.”.]


Nous avons récolté 809 € sur 3000 €

faites un don