BBC is sleep walking into Political Bias

 An article published on 13 of September 2013 defines the upcoming Afghan election in regard to the politics and candidates relation to Ahmad Shah Masood, the slain commander of Mujahidin group under Northern Alliance umbrella. The article concludes that any delay to the election by some is seen as catastrophic.  “Masood was a proponent of fair election” the author adds “but some would argue he was not given the opportunity to organise an election”

In this article a key political process is defined through Masood’s perspective which is appropriate for Masood Heritage Foundation but not BBC. Although Masood’s legacy overshadows Afghan politics; influence of military leaders or of political leader for that matter remains a subject of perspective, even more so when we are talking about legacies. Some might see one of other hundred figures as influential, some might only view those alive as influential. BBC should not be using this major political event to provide a platform for coverage of Masood’s legacy. The article goes further by arguing that Masood was a proponent of election. This is inaccurate, Masood did not organise an election when he was practically running what resembled the national government neither his military wing established a national government with functioning institutions that can lay down a roadmap to election. It is not helpful to talk about a major military leader in terms of what he aspired to do instead of what he actually did; it would be unjust to those who suffered in the turmoil of Mujahidin military ambitions, to which Masood was a big part. It is indecent to dismiss civilian suffering by implying that it was delusions on their part and what actually happened was high class political discourse. I agree that BBC might want to create content about Masood’s legacy but it has to be balanced and accurate. It is inaccurate and unfair to set Masood’s legacy as the standard for election and interlink the two in an article.  

A bias article reinstates the concern of a particular group consistently and throughout without a counter opinion; little attention is paid to attribution of controversial facts. Using that definition this article is bias because it puts forth consistently and throughout the arguments currently made by the successor of Northern Alliance. Given that the author of the article is a staff member of the BBC one would expect that the article is as balanced as possible given the time allotted to story preparation and the space available, and to seek reliable sources. Common sense also commands to presume that such articles are being independently fact-checked by another employee of BBC. This only points out to the widespread domination of BBC Persian editorial by a political fiction, spreading opinions and interests of a particular political and social stream.  I have based this argument primarily on the content of the mentioned article, two other evidence I offer in support of the claim is the consistency and spread of such articles across the board. The method for proofing the former is a look at chronological run of bias articles and the later by evaluating authoring for each articles.

A second article that was published only a month before under the title of ‘lessons of Arab “autumn” for Afghanistan’, also outlines the views of the political calculus of what used to be Northern Alliance that identify themselves as former Mujhidin. The article argues that the murders committed by the military rulers of Egypt should be seen as atrocities of secular, while the Muslim Brotherhood is the victim. The author draws a clear parallel line between Mujahidin and their current political structure with that of Egypt’s Muslim brotherhood. Hence, the argument that political Islam has been incapable of sound governance and has committed atrocities while in power or seeking power does not hold ground. This is while Mujahidin fictions are responsible for most of the atrocities of the 90s as well as some that took place in the 80s which eventually resulted in the rise of Taliban. This article uses false logic by creating parallels between events that have different political roots, causes and results. The author attempts to deprecate the atrocities that various fiction of what he calls Mujahidin has committed by belittling their role in the crimes. The author attempts to downplay the responsibility Mujahidin should be taking for the crimes they had committed by overplaying the resemblance between Egypt and Afghanistan creating an imaginary group secular by its nature and somehow responsible for the crimes in Afghanistan.

Another variable I use to determine institutional bias in BBC is by identifying the authors of these articles. The premise is that institutional bias can be established if such articles are throughout and doctored by different authors. Link three below is another article I consider unduly favourable to Masood, which is by another author who is again a member of BBC Persian team. 

For plurality to be implemented an entity, in this case a nation, that represents diversity should exist. It might be the case that sectarian and ethnic divisions in Afghanistan runs so deep that the creation of balanced information based on Afghanistan wide perspective is unrealistic and unappealing. As a result any broadcaster catering to a linguistic group inclines towards the prevailing politics of that lingo-ethnic group. This certainly holds true if you look at BBC Pashto which some claim is similarly bias toward a Pan-Pashton politics. Many media outlets are ideologically motivated and inclined to support groups and parties that are politically or otherwise aligned with them. BBC Persian is intended to cater to Afghanistan wide audience and pursuing partisan politics is contrary to the policy and a violation of its mission. Should BBC decide to move toward catering to ethnic groups and semi-political fictions then that should be a conscious choice, not sleeping walking into it.

Here is the URL for this article

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/afghanistan/2013/09/130907_zs_masood_shadow_afghan_elections.shtml

another article published under the title of lessons of Arab “autumn” for Afghanistan is at

http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/afghanistan/2013/08/130818_mar_sami_mahdi_egypt_afg.shtml

link number three

http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/afghanistan/2011/09/110908_k01_massud_annivarsary.shtml

Conspiracy Theory is explaining that Cameron has got Syria wrong

Since Cameron’s reaction to the alleged chemical attack in Syria the air is filled with eclectic conspiracy theories. As ridiculous some conspiracy theories sounds it is easy to see that the justification provided by the administration for an imminent military intervention is disingenuous. Government line of reasoning is leading many to sinister theories to explain alternative motives for the probable Military action.

I agree that conspiracy theories are generally manifestation of bigotry or attempted rationalisation of hidden resentments but they point out two critical ends about the political measure in question. But sound reasoning is an evolutionary process and it comes about through a series of trail and errors where less rigours theories are abandoned in favour of those that coincide with the reality. Conspiracy theories are like microbial cultures on political medium where crude theories come to existence that is useless on its own but collectively essential for the evolution of social discourse. Second, the intensity of conspiracy theories is an indication of public response to the political discourse. The greater the number of conspiracy theories the stronger indication that the public cannot understand the basis of political decision; another way to look at it is a socially generated indicator of the honesty of political motives.  

Cameron is itching to launch a strike because he believes that Assad regime has used chemical weapons against civilians. Let’s see what is wrong with this reason for staging a war against a sovereign nation.

First, it’s illegal and immoral to stage wars against a sovereign nation without the endorsement of the United Nations, even if it is intended to save innocent life. Governments should work through a legal framework and abide by due processes.

Second, the administration should warrant and corroborate behind any reasonable doubt that the chemical weapons really were used by Syrian government. It should be established what kind of chemical weapon was used and which belligerent party has used it. The Syrian war has turned into a proxy war where Iran and Russia have provided military, economic and diplomatic support to the regime while on the other hand Westerners, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Wahabi groups and Sunni Jihdists are assisting various sections of the opposition. It is feasible that the Saudis provided the ingredients that can be used to make the dirty bomb, or some sprinter Islamist group from Libyan brought it with them. Such possibilities are numerous and not dismissible and their motive would have been to provoke international intervention.

Third, after over a decade of military campaign in Afghanistan and Iraq our armed forces should know that the situation on the ground is extremely complicated and it is really difficult  to mitigate mistakes. NATO is much better positioned than fledgling Syrian government to decipher rules of engagement to minimise such mistakes. Yet thousands of innocent civilians have been killed in NATO strikes across Afghanistan, some in bizarre incidents, for example hundreds of people have died when NATO war planes targeted wedding ceremonies mistakenly for insurgent gathering. How ridiculous is that?  It may well have been some part of the Syrian military that let loose some rocket that they may or may not knew contained WMD and they may or may not know the consequences and impact of the weapon. That does not necessarily mean Assad and his circle of regime sanction the operation. An equivalent would be that some foreign nation claim to hold Cameron accountable for the death of dozens of women and children in a wedding party in Afghanistan and launch a strike against Britain. 

Fourth, Britain has no legal commitment to intervene even if the Syrian regime used chemical weapons. It might be the right thing to do but that is not why the government should take action. The government is sanctioned to act within a legal framework not some moral imperative. We cannot trust the judgement of politician to lead us into wars but the constitutional commitments.

Fifth, why would Assad government use chemical weapon at a point when its armed forces was turning the tide. Surely it would had gain more tactical advantage if it was used when the rebels had the upper hand. This is even more unlikely when the regime knew it would change the stance of international community.

Sixth, if Assad Regime indeed used chemical weapons, wouldn’t a military action provoke him further to use chemical weapons in retaliation to the attack against civilians and possibly Israel and Turkey?

Seventh, we stood by while over 100,000 civilians were killed by conventional weapons but Cameron chooses to intervene after a single and appalling attack that killed 1300, according to rebel sources. Surely death by explosives is agonising too.

For all these reasons it is unlikely to understand why Mr. Cameron would insist on a military intervention.

What is really important is not a surgical strike but the pursuit of two strategic objectives.

The first and most pressing is taking all measures to stop the bloodshed in Syria, it would further disintegrate the fabric of Syrian society and threaten our interests. Overthrowing Assad is not in the interest of peace, it might achieve Cameron Administration’s short-sighted political objective.  The end of Assad regime might exacerbate the situation by creating a power vacuum where extremist will further nurture. This we have seen in Egypt, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan.  Assad is not the legitimate president of Syria but a brute whom has desolated the Syrian society for a decade and accumulated a personal wealth of 1.5 billion dollars in Hong Kong and Russia. The reason he is in power is because the institutional system in place unlike in Britain is incapable of appointing a legitimate leader and if Assad is dismissed another thug will come forth and take his position. This we will call the best case scenario. The worst case scenario and the most likely would be the creation of a mosaic of factions and characters, which is already taking place, which would ravage the country in their struggle for power.

The second would be to learn from this horrific incident and recognise that the truth is important. We should find out the truth about the chemical attack but this too is unlikely. The only institution currently available for the task is nation states but there is an obvious conflict of interest.  There is no method to ensure that government will not temper evidence in pursuit of their own agenda. This shouldn’t be surprising when we know that the government is willing to transgress into our private space and then lie to us. They would not blink if they were to lie to some foreign people especially when there is no constitutional safe guard to hold them accountable. What we need in this volatile world is independent institutions to investigate such crimes. This will not happen by a decree or funding to some NGO but through collaboration of international community where they show good faith and political will.

isn't this braindrain? 
wouldn't it be in the interest of Afghanistan to divert the over £100 million funding for opportunities to reeducated these brilliant young lads in technical or professional skills that would be required in post foreign support Afghanistan. or is it the case that the British government considers the creation of an economy that would need and supported advanced skills labour inconceivable and instead opts to do a service to these talented young group, that are only few in Afghanistan, by offering them asylum. This seems very plausible and i think for once the politician got it right. they would end up in the west anyway, there is not much else for the interpreters to do in Afghanistan. this is offering them a dignified path.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/04/afghan-interpreters-uk-resettlement-inadequate

It is not a triple dip recession, this is how it is going to be

In the new world a complex system of network nodes and links are appearing that changes the nature of government. if you accept this premises then the question is how does one tackle the predatory state and in doing so seek to unwind the symbiotic relationship that exists between it and powerful interest groups. these interest groups have varied nature and purpose and range from rent seeking elite that dominate the state to subsidiaries of state benefit system. they include lawyers, public servants, artists, beneficiaries, regulators or bankers. Governments through law making, taxation or public spending have promoted these interests in return for votes, partisan patronage and allegiance. the nature of social discourse in regard to stakeholders is predominantly ideological and not constructive; often focused on singling out one of the groups while overemphasizing the relationship it has in wielding social bonds. the left sees the banks as the very source of the problem, after all they caused the calamity of credit crunch and their greed drove financial institutions to near collapse.  The right sees recipient of public service funds and those employed by the sector as the source of the problem. this is a dept crisis and the government is spending way over what it affords in order to appease the current generation at the cost of the young and the unborn.  

as you can appreciate this is not in the interests of the society and the rule of law. it is clear to an onlooker that the nature of state institution should be altered in a way to face up huge agency problems. this would require charismatic leadership that is willing to take the risk. another but most likely scenario is the tale of continued entanglement of the state with the interest groups, eventually the market loses faith in the capacity of nations and the mountain of depth piles on but the state using monetary and financial policies manage to maintain financial confidence  and prevent the collapse of the economy.  this scenario is already shaping in the UK. this era will see economic stagnation and large scale unemployment but the government won't have to default.

my solution is to revisit the role of the state and in the light of its mission study the relationship it has formed with various groups. a range of solution will surface and we can put them all to democratic test. through a system of bargaining that is the characteristic of democracy we will arrive at a few that are acceptable to all. the dept, economic stagnation, unemployment, immigration ... are not the problem they are just symptoms.