Some mainstream media reports get basic facts about Libya situation wrong

On reading many articles on Libya, I have been shocked at the fact that professional news organizations such as Reuters, AFP, and the BBC have reported as facts statements that are demonstrably false. This article presents a number of examples.

For over a year, the UN has been trying, through what is known as the Libyan dialogue, to broker a deal, the Libya Political Agreement (LPA), between the two rival Libyan governments, the internationally-recognized House of Representatives(HoR) based in the east in Tobruk, and the rival General National Congress(GNC) based in Tripoli. Towards the end of his term this fall, then-UN Special Envoy Bernardino Leon was able to present a final draft of the LPA with names of senior members of the associated Government of National Accord (GNA) to the two parliaments. When Martin Kobler took over from Leon on Nov. 17, neither parliament had voted on the issue even though Leon had exerted considerable pressure for them to do so.

Kobler carried on from where Leon left off. He refused to open up the draft to amendments or to change the names of those the UN suggested as senior members of the GNA. Kobler, too, has been unable to have the LPA passed through either parliament. On Dec. 11, Kobler gathered together members of the Libyan dialogue including some from the HoR and the GNC. The GNC has strongly rejected the suggestion that its members represented the GNC. This is in itself is unprecedented. In negotiations, the representatives of each body are authorized by that body to attend negotiations. I expect that the HoR representatives were not designated as a negotiating team either. The HoR has said nothing about what happened even though the president of the HoR supports a competing plan other members of the HoR and GNC negotiated apart from the UN. I take this as a sign that the UN is trying to arrange some deal with the HoR that would be put in jeopardy by a negative reaction from the HoR, or perhaps the HoR is hoping for such a deal.

In any event, the members of the HoR and the GNC at the Tunis meeting agreed to the LPA. Subsequently, the UN Security Council supported the move. On Sunday a large international gathering on Libya also supported Kobler's action. In describing what happened many international news outlets misrepresent the facts. There was no agreement between the two parliaments at all just between some members of each parliament present at the Tunis meeting and no doubt hand-picked by Kobler.

An AFP report claims: Libya's rival parliaments will sign a UN-sponsored agreement next week on forming a national unity government, they announced Friday, as world leaders press them to end chaos in the country.Neither parliament has announced they would sign the deal as the report claims. Read the news release of the UN by Kobler. There is no mention that the parliaments signed or even will sign next Wednesday. He speaks only of the Libya Political Dialogue coming to agreement meaning all those specifically invited to the meeting in Tunis by Kobler. There are no doubt many who did not attend or were not asked to attend who feel quite differently for example the president of the HoR and of the GNC.

The Chinese news outlet Xinhua is no better. They report: Libya's two rival parliaments announced on Friday that Dec. 16 is the date to sign the final peace agreement.

The BBC also joins the chorus misrepresenting the facts: The rival governments agreed at talks in Tunis two days ago to sign the UN-backed political agreement on Wednesday, and Mr Kerry said he expected that to go ahead.As noted, Kerry expected the rival governments to sign the UN-backed agreement on December 16. This is possible but nowhere in Kobler's news release does he suggest that the agreement needs to be approved by the two parliaments. The agreement will go ahead whether they sign or not. So far it appears that the GNC is unlikely to sign on. There has been no response from the HoR.

Why is it that professional media get the facts wrong in this case? One reason may be that Kobler's news release helps them to come to a false conclusion because of the manner in which he arranged the announcement of the agreement in Tunis:You heard what was announced by Mr. Shoueib and Mr. Makhzoum just now, the Libyan political dialogue agreed on a target date for the signature on the 16th of December.Mr. Makhzoum is an official of the GNC government and Shoueib of the HoR government. The GNC claimed that none of their members present represented the GNC and that Makhzoum left the negotiating committee of the GNC back in August. The president of the HoR so far has opposed the LPA but has been silent of late. Notice that Kobler says nothing of the two parliaments signing. He is careful about that. He also at least stretches the truth when he says that the Libyan political dialogue agreed on the date for signing. Only those members of the dialogue invited by the UN to the meeting, forty members in all, agreed to that. No doubt there are many members who were not there who do not agree.

Reuters reporter flees Iraq after threats from his reporting on Tikrit

Ned Parker, Reuter bureau chief in Baghdad, left Iraq after threats to his life on Facebook and being denounced on a Shiite military group news channel.

+ Add Image

Parker had reported on the lynching of an Islamic State fighter by the Federal Iraqi police. His report also detailed widespread looting and arson. Local politicians blame the looting and burning on Shiite militia.He also observed Shia militia dragging a corpse through the streets behind a vehicle. Posts on Facebook and on a TV station linked to armed militia groups demanded that Parker be expelled since he had denigrated Iraqi security forces and government-backed militia. Facebook removed some posts threatening Parker at the request of Reuters.

It should be noted that these militias are not the Iranian backed and controlled militias that had taken part in the earlier offensive that ended up stalled in the suburbs of Tikrit. The US insisted that it would not commence bombing as long as Iranian controlled militia were involved in the final assault: Those Shiite militia groups who remained in Tikrit and agreed to follow Iraqi government orders were easily identified as potential partners. “That means every aspect from top to bottom, the Iraqis had to be in charge,” a U.S. defense official said of the final phase of the battle.The most pro-Iranian militias remained outside or at the perimeters of Tikrit during the final push. Some virulently anti-American militias refused even to take part in the operation. There are also reports of revenge actions in areas surrounding Tikrit so the Iranian-linked militia could have been involved in those.

The Shia are particularly upset about the mass kidnapping and killing by IS of hundreds of Iraqi forces recruits at Camp Speicher. Mass graves recently uncovered may be associated with this massacre. Parker's report is hardly surprising. Amnesty International had already been probing reports of abuses not just by militia but Iraqi forces as well. Rovera , a senior crisis response adviser at Amnesty said:"We are investigating reports that scores of residents have been seized early last month and not heard of since, and that residents' homes and businesses have been blown up or burned down after having been looted by militias.There have also been reports of summary executions of men who may or may not have been involved in combat but who were killed after having been captured,"Some of the revenge actions could very well have been carried out by Sunni tribe members who had opposed IS and seen their members slaughtered by IS while other tribes who cooperated remained untouched.

The vandalism and looting is hardly unexpected as members of the militia appropriate items that will be useful to them or can be sold. Governments and the military detest bad publicity, but then they also are criticized for tolerating threats against journalists who simply report what is happening. Many Sunnis no doubt are relieved to no longer be under the control of the Islamic State and support the Shia militia:On the way out of Tikrit, I stopped to talk to Sunni farmers whose land used to be under ISIS control. We have no problem with the militias, said Hadia Baddaria, adding that the local residents were afraid of ISIS. As she stands in the palm-fringed fields, a truck filled with militiamen pulls up.They've brought food and given a woman from the village a ride. She jumped out of the truck with a tiny baby in her arms, to the delight of the villagers, and headed home.

Farrar Haddad, a research fellow at the Middle East Institute more or less sums up the situation: "While excesses have been committed and there may have even been instances of war crimes, we have yet to see evidence of what was widely feared: a systematic and pre-planned eradication of Tikrit,"

Watch for more foreign involvement in Libya

A common narrative about what is happening in Libya will be about the threat of radical Islamist groups such as Ansar al-Sharia, a group thought to be responsible for the attack on the American consul in Benghazi which killed the ambassador among others.

Reuters has an article on the issue noting that a group of countries mostly Western and Arab state expressed readiness to help Libya's government confront "a growing presence of Islamic militant groups in the North African country." The entire narrative of what has happened fails to mention CIA-linked General Khalifa Haftar, Operation Dignity or his own attacks that started the present confrontation. Nor does the article mention that Haftar allies attacked and burned the Libyan parliament and kidnapped Islamist officials and legislators. The threat is apparently only from Islamist-linked militia. This is not so much news reporting as it is propaganda that ensures the public does not understand the context of what is happening. This is framing that will place discussion of what is happening in Libya in the appropriate context to justify foreign intervention.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon held a high-level meeting on the sidelines during a session of the General Assembly. The group discussed the situation in Libya. A summary of the meeting said: "The meeting recognized the lead role of the government of Libya in addressing the growing threat of terrorist groups, and the readiness to support the government in this regard," France, Britain, the United Staes, Saudi Arabia and Egypt were all at the meeting. The Reuters article stresses the issue of Ansar al-Sharia: Western countries are particularly concerned by the presence of Islamist militant group Ansar al-Sharia in Libya, which the United States blames for killing its ambassador and three other Americans in 2012 and classifies as a terrorist organisation. While the group is active in Benghazi, even there it is simply part of a larger umbrella organization of mostly Islamist militias who control most of Benghazi. In the capital, other groups such as the Misrata militia play a major role but again as part of a larger umbrella organization containing numerous groups.
 France has been taking the lead in urging international intervention. Laurent Fabius said at the UN meeting: "The efforts that are being used to fight Daesh (Islamic State) to limit the movements of foreign fighters and financing should also be used for these groups, We know there are groups on the south and east of Libya, and these, let's be realistic, will not be automatically neutralized just because, as we hope, there is a reconciliation in Libya. Of course the reconciliation is necessary but if we want Libyan forces to do what is necessary towards these terrorist groups, they need to be united. But we all know that other measures will need to be taken." However, these groups are part of much larger umbrella groups of militia who are not going to abandon militant groups simply because France, the US, and others consider them terrorists. Any move against them by foreign forces will simply unite the opposition that already controls Tripoli and Benghazi against foreign interference.
 All this talk about intervention is itself strange since just over a week ago the recognized Libyan government in Tobruk along with 15 other countries came out against any foreign intervention at a meeting in Madrid Spain: Libya's struggling elected government and representatives of 15 neighbouring nations have unanimously rejected the idea of military intervention as a way to restore stability in the oil-rich North African nation, which some say is on the brink of civil war. The group claimed that there was no military solution to the crisis.
 There has already been foreign intervention in the form of night airstrikes on Islamist positions in Tripoli. General Haftar claimed that they were a joint operation involving his forces and the international community. The rebels claimed the UAE and Egypt were involved in the attacks as did the US. However, neither country accepted responsibility. The US later decided that it should take back its accusation against the UAE and Egypt. The government in Tobruk does not hold the UAE or Egypt responsible either, nor does the Libyan ambassador to the UN. The Libyan government, the UN, and all those countries who reject foreign intervention as a solution to Libya's problem have all fallen silent. Perhaps Reuters will do an investigative report. Meanwhile the Libyan government has a space problem in Tobruk: (Funny sidelight: Tobruk, being a fairly small place, doesn’t have sufficient accommodations for all the HoR legislators and bureaucrats, so they leased a Greek car ferry, the Elyros, to live on. Now the ship’s owner wants his ship back and has demanded that they leave. As of this date, they have refused to disembark.)

Reports on drone strikes often misleading

 News sources differ in the precise wording they choose to use in reports. This article illustrates these differences in reports on drone strikes in Pakistan.

 For several years the CIA has been launching drone attacks on targets in the tribal areas of Pakistan. Almost everyone knows this. However the official position of the CIA is that to even assert or deny the existence of these attacks could endanger the security of the U.S. Important officials including President Obama and the U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta have acknowledged the attacks and even boasted about them. Nevertheless the official position is "" The Central Intelligence Agency continues to refuse to confirm or deny the covert military use of drones to kill suspected terrorists overseas, despite President Barack Obama’s and even a former CIA director’s admission of the agency’s targeted killing program. ""


While this position appears ludicrous it has a rational function and that is to block the release of any information about the program. At the same time any information that the administration wants released for propaganda purposes can be leaked or announced. The American Civil Liberties Union and the New York Times attempted to obtain information about the strikes through the Department of Justice with no success. They have now turned to the courts. The case is continuing but the Obama administration has tried to have the request for documents denied."" The Obama administration has sought to block the release of documents related to its use of robot drones to strike suspected terrorists overseas, claiming that it can still not admit that the secretive programme of targeted killing exists"".
The official policy is often quite visible in reports of drone attacks. The language used in reports often avoids mentioning that the attacks are by the U.S. Phrases used vary. Some sources speak of "suspected U.S. drone attacks". Other sources simply speak of "drone attacks" with no reference as to who might have launched them. Here for example is a headline from 2010 in CNN."Drone attack kills 20 in Pakistan" Even back in 2010 some sources must have thought it ridiculous to not attribute the attacks to the U.S. A Reuters report headline from 2010 is as follows."" U.S. drone strikes kill 18 militants in Pakistan"" However in the body of the report Reuters notes that the headline statement is according to Pakistan intelligence officials. Reuters itself is simply reporting what anonymous officials said and are not themselves affirming or denying that the U.S. launched the attacks.

 CNN is still in 2012 going along with the official story even while many outlets have moved on. CNN reports recently with a headline that speaks only of a drone attack:"" 20 dead in drone attack in Pakistan ""Even when reporting what a Pakistani intelligence official said the word "suspected" is inserted before "U.S. drone strike""" A suspected U.S. drone strike killed 20 people in North Waziristan, a region along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, a Pakistani intelligence official told CNN Friday""

. Usually those killed in the attacks are described as militants or suspected militants or not described at all. The CNN report cited above reports that an intelligence official claims that 20 people were killed but has no description of the victims. The Reuters report cited earlier has a headline reporting that 18 militants were killed. Only later does the report note that this is according to Pakistani intelligence officials. Pakistani intelligence officials are not likely to report civilian deaths or women and children as victims. Reports of drone strikes rarely report any civilian deaths. Even if there are such reports they will be from local people and will often conflict with official statements. Estimates of how many civilians are killed by drone strikes in Pakistan vary.. Officials often give very low estimates. However the Bureau of Investigative Journalism studied the issue at some length.""Based on extensive research, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that between 391 – 780 civilians were killed out of a total of between 1,658 and 2,597 and that 160 children are reported among the deaths. The Bureau also revealed that since President Obama took office at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims and more than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners, tactics that have been condemned by legal experts.""

 Most reports on drone strikes provide no evidence of civilian deaths. Those killed are militants or suspected militants. Victims are identified only if they are believed to be significant militant leaders. Mainstream media reports on drone strikes seem designed to mislead the reader.