Svenska
    
    
The Mechanics of
Mental Occupation

   
Information in the service of Pax Americana
    

A Nicaraguan farmer
gets help in learning how
to read and write as part
of the Sandinistas' demo-
cratisation process. The
USA has destroyed that
process -- a reality that
is seldom visible in
Swedish news media.
A WORLD VIEW is usually not created in a single stroke. It is built up with thousands and thousands of small pieces which together convey a more or less distinct impression of causal relations and general context. As with music, where the silences are as important to the whole as the audible tones, our understanding of the world is strongly influenced by those pieces of information that are missing from the total picture.

Particularly with regard to distant problems and events, we are all to some degree dependent on various mediators who decide which details we get to see and, accordingly, what kinds of patterns they might form. In everyday life, it is most often the news media which exercise that responsibility, and the key role in the entire process is played by editors-- the individual human beings who regulate the flow of information.
    

Theoretically, these information regulators possess a professional ability to filter the essential from the non-essential, the useful from the insignificant, and thereby supply news consumers with the information they need in order to form their own, accurate picture of the current situation. But it is often difficult to determine whether or not this theory corresponds to reality, since editors exercise a nearly autocratic power and are seldom required to justify their editorial decisions-- not to the less powerful, in any event.
    



It occasionally happens that an editor comes out into the open with explanations of why certain items of information are granted exposure, while others are judged to be inappropriate. And on nearly every such occasion, it turns out that editors are pretty much like most folks.
But it occasionally happens that one or another editor comes out into the open with explanations of why certain pieces and sources of information are granted exposure, while others are judged to be inappropriate for general consumption. And on nearly every such occasion, it turns out that editors are pretty much like most folks-- i.e. mere mortals with their good sides, but also with a variety of prejudices, knowledge deficiencies, ideological blinders, defence mechanisms and, not least, susceptibility to pressure from powerful forces from above.

For many issues of domestic policy, and essentially all areas of foreign policy, the most powerful force from on high is the United States, whose influence is communicated through various channels to permeate the larger part of news reporting even in Sweden. The evidence for this crucial state of affairs is virtually unlimited; one typical example is presented below. It has to do with a response to a book review in the prominent daily newspaper, Svenska Dagbladet, in which the author was criticised for equating certain aspects of U.S. foreign policy with that of the now-defunct Soviet Union.
    

       
* * *
The comparison may be far-fetched-- because the United State's impact on Latin American has been much more horrific and has gone on for a much longer time than the Soviet Union's domination of Central Europe.

For U.S. Enthusiasts,
Truths That Are Hard to Swallow

In her review of Björn Kumm's new book, Kalla Kriget ("The Cold War"), in the 14 January 2000 edition of Svenska Dagbladet, Ylva von Gerber objects to the fact that Kumm draws attention to certain unpleasant similarities between the Soviet and United States empires.

"To compare the struggle of the free trade union, Solidarity, against the Gierek regime in Poland with the Sandinistas' revolt against the Somoza regime in Nicaragua is quite absurd," writes von Gerber, "especially in light of the fact that the Sandinistas, when they came to power, quickly established their own form of dictatorship."

It is possible that the comparison is far-fetched-- but rather because the United State's impact on Latin American has been much more horrific and has gone on for a much longer time than the Soviet Union's domination of Central Europe.

     
"What is happening is that the democratically-elected government of a sovereign nation is being quite unjustifiably harassed and bullied by those who claim to come from 'The home of the brave and the land of the free'."
As early as 1829, freedom-fighter Simon Bolivar observed that, "Providence seems to have ordained the United States to plague Latin America with liberty in the name of freedom." Nicaragua's history during most of the 20th century provides ample evidence of that assertion. Characteristically, it was the United States which installed and the Somoza dictatorship and maintained it in power for a half-century. As President F.D. Roosevelt put the matter: "Somoza may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he's our son-of-a-bitch!"

It was the Sandinistas who got rid of Somoza and gave the country democracy. According to a broad range of international observers, the national election in 1984 was one of the cleanest ever held in Latin America. The delegation from Great Britain under the leadership of Lord Chitnis reported home to Parliament that there were even "some unusual provisions which must make some parties in this country green with envy. . . . What is happening is that the democratically-elected government of a sovereign nation is being quite unjustifiably harassed and bullied by those who claim to come from 'The home of the brave and the land of the free'."

U.S. efforts to sabotage the 1984 election failed, but it responded with a war of attrition during the next five years including, among other elements, sabotage, terrorism by hired thugs, and economic aggression. In the run-up to the 1989 election, the CIA bribed together a remarkable coalition incorporating everything from Marxist-Leninists to reactionary Catholics; and President Bush let it be known that the plaguing of Nicaragua would continue if its people did not vote for the United States' candidate. And so it was. But even though the 1989 election was a travesty orchestrated by the U.S., the Sandinistas relinquished power. Since then, life for the great majority of the population has gone back to the same old hell.

     
The United States invests large resources in order to dominate the flow of information, and has many allies around the globe who provide various kind of assistance toward that end.
This is nothing new: Since Bolivar's time, there have been many attempts to mitigate the widespread suffering among Latin America's overwhelming majority through investments in public health and education, grassroots democracy, a less grotesque distribution of wealth, etc. Not one of those attempts has gone unpunished by the United States. It is much the same in all the other parts of the world where the U.S. has made its presence felt, and left behind a legacy of destruction-- in Indochina, Indonesia, southern Africa, and more.

For U.S. enthusiasts in Sweden and elsewhere, these truths are, of course, hard to swallow. But they need seldom be confronted with them: The United States invests large resources in order to dominate the flow of information, and has many allies around the globe who provide various kind of assistance toward that end. That is precisely why Björn Kumm's new book is so valuable.

* * *

The difference between editors and supported arguments
  
The foregoing reponse was composed by Levande Framtid's co-ordinator, Al Burke, at the invitation of Svenska Dagbladet editor Peter Luthersson, who nevertheless replied: "We do not refuse to publish opinions. But I can not see that you have supported your arguments, and that is something we usually require. . . . Try to learn the difference between the right of reply and the desire to prattle (because one does not like something and wishes to say so)."

The problem for editor Luthersson-- apart from the fact that the response is obviously better supported than the original review-- is that Burke happens to be the author of a history on the subject which includes nearly 550 references. The book has been praised by, among others, a former CIA agent with extensive experience of Latin America, a Nobel Prize recipient and prominent peace activist, and a legendary professor of history with great competence in such matters.

     
Pure propaganda is passed on without the slightest demand for evidence or possibility of reply, while well-documented facts are rejected as "poorly supported prattle".
The reviewer's credentials in this context have yet to be revealed. But her argumentation is essentially the same as that of the U.S. propaganda against Nicaragua, which was long ago demonstrated to be as mendacious as usual.

But so it remarkably often goes with the image of the United States in Swedish media. Pure propaganda is passed on without the slightest demand for evidence or possibility of reply, while well-documented facts are rejected as "poorly supported prattle".

It might be argued that an example taken from Svenska Dagbladet has no great significance, since that newspaper has long had a conservative-reactionary profile. But that applies primarily to the editorial page-- which is, indeed, an intellectual disaster area-- whereas the news columns have often displayed a higher quality than other alternatives, and Luthersson's culture section has often boasted of its openness to free debate.

     
The consequence is that the U.S. is not required to answer for its lengthy history of evil deeds all around the globe, not even in Sweden.





In any event, the situation is hardly better in other leading organs of Swedish journalism. The state television system, for example, has broadcast lengthy reports on the current situation in Nicaragua without once mentioning the United States. That is on a par with reporting on the state of things in East Timor without bothering to mention Indonesia, or discussing the fate of Tibet without referring to China. When this is pointed out to Swedish Television's management, its response is a deafening silence. Or consider the rapid deterioration of Sweden's leading newspaper, Dagens Nyheter, since the departures of such enlightened journalists as Olof Lagercrantz and Arne Ruth-- a minor tragedy. And so on. . . .

In short and with very few (usually short-lived) exceptions, the information flow's most powerful regulators tend to serve the purposes of the United States. The reasons for this pattern of behaviour are, of course, subject to discussion. But the consequence is that the U.S. is not required to answer for its lengthy history of evil deeds all around the globe, not even in Sweden. This goes a long way to explaining why Sweden has once again become mentally occupied by the superpower across the Atlantic. The implications for Sweden's foreign policy, as well as its other policies, can not be overestimated.


March 2000   
    
  

Return to top of page