When is a coup not a coup? When an illegitimate government suits the interests of the US government. Thus, when General Sisi toppled Morsi nearly three years ago, the army takeover was not called a coup by Washington. Next, when Viktor Yanukovych, the elected Ukranian president, was driven out of office by mobs that included neo-Nazi thugs, and with clear Western incitement, his illegal successor was recognised and welcomed by the Obama administration.

But when General Pervez Musharraf sent Nawaz Sharif packing in 1999, the Americans were swift to slap sanctions on Pakistan. The reason for this discriminatory behaviour lies in an American law that blocks all aid to a government formed by the overthrow of a democratically elected leader. Thus, General Sisi suits America and Israel because he is a sworn enemy of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. Similarly, an anti-Russia successor to Yanukovych is in Western interest because he helps to cut Putin down to size. By refusing to call both power-grabs by their real name — a coup — Obama has circumvented the law and continues to support the illegitimate leaders of Egypt and Ukraine despite the fact that they have both come to power through coups. Pre-9/11 Pakistan, on the other hand, was unimportant, and hence could be thrown to the wolves.

Interestingly, the mainstream media is quite happy to go along with this fiction. In an online article, Robert Parry, a veteran investigative reporter, examines The New York Times’ coverage of events in Ukraine, pointing out the parallels to the fall of elected governments through CIA-led coups in Iran in 1951, and Guatemala in 1954. He writes:

“The first step in this process [the toppling of an elected government] was to obscure that the motive for the coup — pulling Ukraine out of Russia’s economic orbit and capturing it in the European Union’s gravity field — was actually announced by influential American neo-cons in 2013…

“At that time, in early fall 2013, Ukraine’s President Yanukovych was exploring the idea of reaching out to Europe with an association agreement. But he got cold feet in November 2013 when economic experts in Kiev advised him that the Ukranian economy would suffer a $160 billion hit if it separated from Russia … There was also the West’s demand that Ukraine accept a harsh austerity plan from the IMF.”

Yanukovych pulled out of negotiations with the EU when Russia offered a concessionary loan of $15 billion, plus a discounted price for natural gas. At this point, large-scale demonstrations broke out in Kiev’s Maidan Square. To encourage them, American officials openly turned up, with the State Department’s Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland handing out cookies to demonstrators. Senator John McCain turned up too, telling the crowd the US was with them.

Soon, the protests turned violent, with armed extremist elements arriving from Western Ukraine. Police were attacked, and armed protesters seized official buildings where they unfurled Nazi banners. Although Yanukovych ordered the police to show restraint, he was nonetheless depicted in the American media as a callous thug who was killing his own people. On Feb 14, 2014, unknown snipers opened fire, killing around 80 people. US diplomats immediately blamed Yanukovych for the attack, even though it appears the shooting began from a building occupied by extreme right-wing protesters.

During all this, none of the mainstream media reported on events with any attempt at objectivity. Suddenly, they were all echoing the official American line. Even in a recent long article, The New York Times failed to mention the American involvement in the coup, choosing to stick to the version put out by the State Department. Something similar happened before the US-led invasion of Iraq when the Times went right along with President Bush’s lies about non-existent Iraqi WMDs.

So why does a powerful and illustrious newspaper like The New York Times fall into line with official policy? In his classic exposé of the American media, Manufacturing Consent, Noam Chomsky detailed the interlocking interests of the government, the media, large corporations and academia. He also made the point that editors and reporters feel the need for access to the highest levels of the administration, and thus fall for misinformation that is occasionally handed out to them as ‘scoops’.

As many media outlets are ultimately owned by corporations that are dependent on government contracts, they can be coerced into echoing official policy. Universities, heavily dependent on government research grants, tend to support the consensus instead of questioning and criticising it. This convergence of interests leads to the ‘manufactured consent’ of the title of Chomsky’s book.

Thus, if the Israeli narrative dominates the American coverage of the Middle East, it is not because of a secret cabal of Zionist supporters who control the media, but due to the simple fact that the American government and Congress are solidly behind Israel. Palestinians are caricatured and ridiculed to the point where their aspirations are not deemed worthy of attention.

This constant bombardment of slanted news and views has reached the point where millions of Americans have no idea about the history and background of the Palestinian tragedy. Not long ago, I met an intelligent young Canadian lawyer who was unaware that Israel has been in illegal occupation of the West Bank since 1967.

Through such one-sided coverage, the media might be helping the American government achieve its foreign policy objectives in countries like Iran, Egypt and Ukraine, but it is doing its readers and viewers a disservice by deliberately suppressing the truth. Editors and publishers must decide where their real duty lies.

Published in Dawn January 19th , 2015

On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play