🚀 go-pugleaf

Saturday, May 15th

 NATO, Media and Chinese Embassy

 How NATO & the Media Misrepresented the Chinese Embassy
 Bombing


 Opponents of the war against Serbia argue that much of what 
passes for news these days is really a
 kind of war propaganda, that NATO puts out misinformation and the 
media disseminates the stuff
 uncritically.
 A case in point is the coverage of the bombing of the Chinese 
Embassy in Belgrade. I
 download wire service reports from the AOL world news database 
(accessible at
 aol://4344:30.WORLD.338815.464449182 if you are an AOL member). 
This allows me to see
 exactly how wire services and newspapers change the news from 
hour to hour. Very instructive for
 studying how misinformation is disseminated.

 Studying misinformation is a special interest of mine.If you'd 
like to see some of my previous work in
 this area, send me a note and I'll email you The Emperor's 
Clothes, which analyzes how the NY
 Times misinformed its readers about the bombing of a Sudanese 
pill factory in August, 1998.

 Before we examine the news coverage of the bombing of the Chinese 
Embassy, let me recount a very
 interesting report from a Chinese intellectual, currently at 
Harvard's Kennedy Institute, who spoke on May
 8th at the weekly Boston anti-war rally (held at 3:00 every Sat. 
in Copley Square).
 The man had conferred with people overseas and thus had direct 
knowledge of the attack on the Chinese
 Embassy. He said three missiles had struck the Embassy compound, 
hitting three apartments where one
 or both adult family members was a journalist. The missiles 
apparently carried a light explosive charge.

 Why NATO targeted Chinese journalists

 Why, asked the speaker, did all three missiles strike 
journalists' apartments?
 Clearly, he said, the goal was to punish China for sympathizing 
with the Yugoslav people against NATO.
 More specifically, the intention was to terrorize Chinese 
newspeople in Yugoslavia, thus silencing yet
 another non-NATO information source.

 Does that seem too nightmarish to be true?

 Keep in mind, NATO has consistently bombed Serbian news outlets 
with the stated intention of silencing
 sources of "lying propaganda." Why would it be so far-fetched for 
them to do the same to Chinese
 newspeople? Perhaps NATO wants to silence ALL non-NATO reporting 
on the war, even at the
 risk of starting WW III. Or perhaps NATO, or a part of NATO, such 
as the U.S. government, wants
 to provoke a fight with China before China gets too strong to be 
crushed? 

 Let's take a look at the "news" coverage.

 Sorry, wrong building

 NATO spokesman Jamie Shea's first response to the Embassy bombing 
was a) to apologize and b) to
 explain that the NATO missiles had gone astray. NATO had intended 
to hit a building across the street, a
 building that houses what SHEA called the "Federal Directory for 
the Supply and Procurement."
 Said Shea: "I understand that the two buildings are close 
together." (Reuters, May 8)

 (If they ever catch the terrorists who bombed the US Embassy in 
Kenya and bring them to trial, could their
 legal team utilize the Shea Defense which consists of a) first 
you say I'm very sorry and b) then you say
 you meant to blow up the building across the street?)

 But getting back to the "news" -- according to Jamie Shea the 
Chinese Embassy is close to the "Federal
 Directory for the Supply and Procurement." But the Chinese 
Embassy is in fact located in the middle of a
 large lawn or park in a residential neighborhood and:
 "The embassy stands alone in its own grounds surrounded by grassy 
open space on three sides. Rows of
 high-rise apartment blocs are located 200 (600 feet) metres away 
and a line of shops, offices and
 apartments sits about 150 meters (450 feet) away on the other 
side of a wide tree-lined avenue,
 [called]...Cherry Tree Street." (Reuters, 5/8)

 Nearby building? What nearby building?

 Apparently realizing that a "Federal Directory for the Supply and 
Procurement" would not be placed in an
 apartment complex -- or on a 1000 foot lawn - NATO spun a new 
story a few hours later:
 "Three NATO guided bombs which slammed into the Chinese embassy 
in Belgrade overnight struck
 precisely at the coordinates programmed into them, but it was not 
the building NATO believed it to be. 
 'They hit bang on the three aim points they were given,' a 
military source said... [NATO military
 spokesman General Walter] Jertz declined to say what sort of 
weapon hit the Chinese embassy, except
 that it was 'smart' or guided munitions and not free-fall bombs. 
He denied planners were 'using old
 maps, wrong maps.'" (Reuters, May 8)

 OK. Three smart missiles or bombs hit the three locations they 
were supposed to hit. It was a
 misidentified target. And the Pilot(s) wasn't misled by old or 
bad maps.

 On the face of it, what is the likelihood of NATO picking target 
coordinates that just happen to coincide
 with three apartments occupied by journalists? I mean, one 
computer-guided bomb destroying a
 journalist's home would not be unlikely. But three hitting three 
journalists' homes?

 Too many spokesman

 In the same Reuters story, another expert suggests it would be 
highly unlikely for NATO to make the kind
 of mistake Jertz is suggesting:
 "'Target identification and pilot preparation would have been 
extensive in this case, because of the
 military importance of the intended target and because Belgrade 
is heavily defended by Serb forces,' [Air
 Force Maj. Gen. Charles Wald, a strategic planner for the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff] said at a briefing for
 reporters. 'The way targeting works ... the higher the threat, 
the more valued the target, the more time
 you would study it. The more time you have to study it, the 
better,' Wald said."

 Based on what Wald is saying here, isn't it pretty much unlikely 
that an embassy would be mistaken for a
 "Federal Directory for the Supply and Procurement?"

 Too many names

 Which brings us to yet another problem. Because in the same MAY 8 
Reuters Story the name of the place
 which NATO intended to bomb mysteriously changes - not once but 
twice. Read the following quote from
 General Jertz carefully:

 "Careful to avoid making excuses, NATO military spokesman General 
Walter Jertz said NATO went after
 the target because it thought it was the weapons warehouse of the 
Federal Directorate for Supply and
 Procurement. 

 'The information we had was that in this building was the 
headquarters of the Directorate, and we have no
 evidence that we were misled,' he said."

 So now the thing they thought they were bombing was:
 a) the Federal Directory for the Supply and Procurement;
 b) Weapons warehouse of the Federal Directorate for Supply and 
Procurement; and
 c) the headquarters of the Directorate.

 No wonder they couldn't be misled. They couldn't even name the 
place.

 And too many missiles

 NATO'S next spin-control effort was an attempt to simplify 
things. Retelling the story again a bit later on
 the 8th, AP reported that: "The precision-guided weapon that hit 
the Chinese embassy in Belgrade
 apparently did just what it was told. .."

 One weapon. That does make things more believable, unless of 
course the reader has seen the previous
 stories that refer to three missiles... Since few people read 
multiple news stories about the same topic,
 and even fewer read them carefully, moving from three to one 
missile is a pretty safe gambit. But the
 problem still remains: how could NATO targeteers, pouring over 
their maps, not notice the label CHINESE
 EMBASSY on a building they were planning to bomb?

 The maps! It was the maps!

 NATO'S answer: switch positions on the map question.

 What was the source of "the erroneous B-2 bomber attack, which 
dropped several satellite-guided bombs
 on the embassy"?

 Here's the latest explanation: 

 "In mistakenly targeting the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade Friday 
night, U.S. intelligence officials were
 working from an outdated map issued before China built its 
diplomatic compound several years ago,
 American and NATO authorities said yesterday. 'The tragic and 
embarrassing truth is that our maps
 simply did not show the Chinese Embassy anywhere in that 
vicinity,' a senior NATO official said."
 (Washington Post, May 10)

 Let's consider the implications of what we've just read.

 First, the Post accepts without question NATO'S assertion that 
the embassy bombing was accidental.
 Indeed the Post doesn't mention the highly newsworthy fact that 
the news accounts are so mutually
 contradictory. Doesn't that tell us something about these news 
agencies, about their attitude toward NATO
 and this war? That they are really part of NATO'S public 
relations effort, dutifully reporting whatever they
 are told without pointing out the implications of NATO'S ever-
evolving explanations. Doesn't that suggest
 that we should be very skeptical about other media coverage - for 
example, the stories "proving" the
 Serbs are committing genocide?

 Second, the claim that using "old maps" was the problem flatly 
contradicts an equally confident assertion
 made about 36 hours earlier by a NATO spokesman, General Jertz. 
You remember: "He [that is, Gen.
 Jertz] denied planners were 'using old maps, wrong maps.'" 
(Reuters, May 8) 

 Third, consider the phrase "outdated map issued before China 
built its diplomatic compound several
 years ago." This phrase suggests NATO was using map-books or 
perhaps fold-up maps, the kind you
 take on a road trip. Is it conceivable that NATO would be using 
such ancient technology? What's the
 matter, they can't afford computers? They have no technical 
staff? We are after all talking about the
 combined armed forces of the U.S. and most of Europe. The whole 
focus of their attack on Serbia is aerial
 bombardment. Aerial bombardment depends primarily on maps and 
intelligence. Doesn't it fly in the face
 of rudimentary common sense -- indeed of sanity -- to believe 
that this super-technological military force
 would have anything but the most sophisticated mapping 
facilities, updated with satellite photos and local
 intelligence reports hourly, all of it in computerized war rooms 
with giant screens, scores of technical
 personnel, etc. 

 And isn't it equally obvious, that that one thing such an armed 
force would have at its finger tips would be
 exact information about sensitive installations -- such as 
diplomatic facilities -- precisely to make sure
 they did not get bombed? 

 Unless of course NATO wanted them to be bombed.

 And of all the diplomatic facilities in all of Yugoslavia, 
wouldn't the one to which NATO would pay the most
 attention be the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade - both because of 
China's immense world-importance and
 because it is Belgrade's chief ally?

 Of course NATO had up-to-date maps of the area around the Chinese 
Embassy. And of every square inch
 inside the Embassy and complete dossiers on all the people 
working in the Embassy as well.

 Fourth, since NATO claims it decided to bomb the Embassy because 
of what the targeteers saw on these
 "old maps" - just what did the targeteers see? We are told they 
didn't see the Embassy. Did they see
 something else they wanted to attack and destroy? Just what was 
this something else? Was it a building
 which housed some military facility? In the middle of a 1000 foot 
lawn in a residential section of the city?
 And if there is such a map with such a building, why doesn't NATO 
produce this ancient document, and
 show it to us?

 Fifth, the story says the bombs were delivered by a "B-2 bomber." 
Don't the B-2's fly out of a U.S. base -
 I believe it's in Missouri. So let us "be from Missouri" for a 
moment, and ask a couple of Missouri (that is
 skeptical) questions:
 a) Keeping in mind that NATO has air bases in Italy - right near 
Yugoslavia - as well as aircraft carriers in
 nearby waters, is it really believable that the U.S. government 
would send a super-expensive plane on an
 eight hour flight to deliver three smart missiles or bombs to a 
relatively minor site in Yugoslavia? (I say
 relatively minor because it took NATO two days to even get clear 
on the name of the institution they
 meant to bomb...)
 b) Having made the unbelievable decision to send this plane on 
that mission, is it believable that the
 U.S. military would do such a thing based on the information 
contained in some "outdated maps issued"
 years before?

 And sixth -- did you notice we are once again talking about 
multiple bombs or missiles?

 Let us now review NATO's stories

 According to NATO there were three -
 NO, there was only one smart bomb that hit the Chinese Embassy by 
mistake because it missed a
 building across the street that houses the "Federal Supply and 
Procurement Office" -
 NO, that wasn't the problem. The missiles (because we're back to 
three missiles again) didn't miss --
 they hit right on target except it turned out the target was all 
wrong, wasn't the Federal Supply and
 Procurement Office at all, it was the Chinese Embassy and somehow 
the targeteers got it all confused but
 one thing is definite: the mix-up was not the result of using old 
maps. -
 But that's not right either because if a target is important a 
great deal of care is taken, and given that
 this was such an important target, even more care would be taken 
to make sure it really was the a)
 Federal Directory for the Supply and Procurement and -
 NO, that should be the b) Weapons Warehouse of the Federal 
Directorate for Supply and Procurement, -
 NO, that isn't right either it wasn't just a warehouse, it was 
the c) HEADQUARTERS of the Directorate and -
 NO! Forget everything we've said so far. It was the maps. The 
maps were very old so you couldn't tell that
 the building on that site was an Embassy. And there were three 
missiles, of course. Who ever said
 anything about there only being one?

 And as for sending a B-2 bomber half way around the world to 
carry out this mistaken attack on a target
 whose name nobody can get straight, all I can say is: what damn 
fool went and admitted it was a B-2
 bomber?

 A park and other military targets

 This writer has just spoken to a Serbian gentlemen whose family 
lives a few blocks from the Embassy. He
 says the Embassy was built 4 or 5 years ago and that prior to the 
building of the Embassy, the only thing
 there was: a park.

 A letter from an American living in Belgrade says the embassy is 
in area called New Belgrade (Novi
 Beograd), developed from sand marsh land after WWII. She 
confirmed that the land on which the
 Embassy sits was unoccupied before it was built. However, she 
says "park" is too fancy a term, that it was
 just a huge lawn, with very few trees. 

 Therefore the notion that NATO could possess a map drawn before 
the Chinese Embassy was built which
 showed any building occupying the land on which the Embassy now 
stands is simply impossible. There was
 nothing there. 

 Therefore NATO is lying. 

 Since NATO is lying, what are we are left with? There is the 
Chinese gentleman's explanation. There is the
 possibility that this bombing is an intentional provocation, 
perhaps aimed at challenging China before
 China gets too big. There is the possibility that NATO and or the 
U.S. government was "delivering a
 message" to China - and to other would-be independent governments 
- that independence will be
 punished with death.

 In any case, it seems clear that the attack was planned, and that 
to make sure it went precisely according
 to that plan, the most sophisticated plane available was sent 
thousands of miles to deliver three small
 bombs. NATO deliberately blew up three apartments inhabited by 
Chinese journalists in the Chinese
 Embassy. This was a high-tech execution.

 The question is: What will NATO do next?

 PS This document has been read by several thousand people by now, 
and I've received quite a few
 responses. Perry, an American grad student in California writes:

 "Talking to people about the Embassy bombing, I've noticed how 
the lies which you point out actually
 *dovetail* in the mind of many people - 1) old maps; 2) nearby 
target. People naturally put this
 misinformation together and "create" meaning! The common 
interpretation is as follows: There was a
 military target which US/NATO was trying to hit, but because of 
"old maps" they got confused and bombed
 the wrong location.
 Now I know that this line doesn't make any sense, but I can't 
tell you how many people have repeated it
 to me.. Very effective propaganda; we can almost call it `art.'"

 This recalls a point I made in my analysis of NY Times coverage 
of the bombing of the pill factory in
 Sudan, an analysis I called The Emperor's Clothes. (If you'd like 
to see the Emperor, drop me a line and
 I'll send it to you...). In that analysis, I pointed out that 
several days after the bombing of the Sudan
 factory, the Times "floated" an entirely new explanation for U.S. 
actions. A page 1 story claimed that not
 only had the pill factory secretly manufactured nerve gas - but 
Iraq was behind the whole thing. This
 justification apparently didn't fly because it was repeated in a 
minor story one more time, then dropped
 entirely.

 Five days later, the Times printed a letter from a gentleman who 
commented on this "Iraqi connection" as
 if it were an established fact. And the thought occurred to me 
that these bits of non-fact stick in our
 heads, interfering with our thinking the way graphite ribbons 
interfere with electrical generators, and that
 this nonsense, multiplied a thousand-fold, forms a kind of smog, 
preventing us from seeing the
 surrounding mountains of evidence: that the US government has 
murdered people and lied about the
 deed. 

 Note to reader: If you wish to see the complete text of the 
articles I have quoted from, drop me a line
 and I'll be glad to send them to you.

 IF you know anyone to whom you would like me to send documents 
and analysis concerning this war and
 related questions, please send me the email address(es). Thanks!

                                                                 
Jared Israel
                                                               
jaredi@aol.com