{"id":117147,"date":"2018-08-27T12:00:20","date_gmt":"2018-08-27T11:00:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=117147"},"modified":"2018-09-03T10:50:56","modified_gmt":"2018-09-03T09:50:56","slug":"a-regime-is-a-government-at-odds-with-the-us-empire","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2018\/08\/a-regime-is-a-government-at-odds-with-the-us-empire\/","title":{"rendered":"A \u2018Regime\u2019 Is a Government at Odds with the US Empire"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>

Featured image is from the author.<\/p><\/div>\n

20 Aug 2018 – <\/em>In the aftermath of the assassination attempt against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro<\/strong>, an article in the Miami Herald<\/strong> (8\/5\/18<\/a>) reported that \u201ca clandestine group formed by Venezuelan military members opposed to the regime of Nicol\u00e1s Maduro claimed responsibility.\u201d A New York Times<\/strong> op-ed (8\/10\/18<\/a>) mused, \u201cNo one knows whether the Maduro regime will last decades or days.\u201d AFP<\/strong>(8\/12\/18<\/a>) reported that \u201cTrump has harshly criticized Maduro\u2019s leftist regime.\u201d<\/p>\n

The word \u201cregime\u201d implies that the government to which the label is applied is undemocratic, even tyrannical, so it\u2019s peculiar that the term is used in Venezuela\u2019s case, since the country\u2019s leftist government has repeatedly won free and fair elections (London Review of Books<\/strong>, 6\/29\/17<\/a>). One could argue that, strictly speaking, \u201cregime\u201d can simply mean a system, and in some specific, infrequent contexts, that may be how it\u2019s used. But broadly the word \u201cregime\u201d suggests a government that is unrepresentative, repressive, corrupt, aggressive\u2014without the need to offer any evidence of these traits.<\/p>\n

Interestingly, the US itself meets many of the criteria for being a \u201cregime\u201d: It can be seen as an oligarchy rather than a democracy<\/a>, imprisons people at a higher rate than any other country<\/a>, has grotesque levels of inequality and bombs another country every 12 minutes<\/a>. Yet there\u2019s no widespread tendency for the corporate media to describe the US state as a \u201cregime.\u201d<\/p>\n

The function of \u201cregime\u201d is to construct the ideological scaffolding for the United States and its partners to attack whatever country has a government described in this manner. According to the mainstream media, the democratically elected government of Nicaragua is a \u201cregime\u201d (Washington Post<\/strong>, 7\/11\/18<\/a>). Cuba also has a \u201cregime\u201d (Washington Post<\/strong>, 7\/25\/18<\/a>). Iraq and Libya used to have \u201cregimes\u201d\u2014before the United States implemented \u201cregime change.\u201d North Korea most definitely has one (New York Times<\/strong>, 7\/26\/18<\/a>), as do China (Washington Post<\/strong>, 8\/3\/18<\/a>) and Russia (Wall Street Journal<\/strong>, 7\/15\/18<\/a>).<\/p>\n

When, for the media, does a government become a \u201cregime\u201d? The answer, broadly speaking: A country\u2019s political leaders are likely to be called a \u201cregime\u201d when they do not follow US dictates, and are less likely to be categorized as such if they cooperate with the empire.<\/p>\n

\u2018Regimes\u2019 in Latin America<\/strong><\/p>\n

A search run with the media aggregator Factiva finds that in the nearly 20 years since Venezuela first elected a Chavista government, the New York Times<\/strong>, Wall Street Journal<\/strong> and Washington Post<\/strong> have used the phrase \u201cVenezuelan regime\u201d 74 times, \u201cregime in Venezuela\u201d 30 times, \u201cCh\u00e1vez regime\u201d 68 times, \u201cMaduro regime\u201d 168 times and \u201cregime in Caracas\u201d five times. All of these governments have been democratically elected, but have sinned by trying to carve out a path independent of US control.<\/p>\n

Consider, by contrast, coverage of Honduras. The country is hardly lacking in characteristics associated with a \u201cregime.\u201d On June 28, 2009, a US-backed military coup overthrew the democratically elected government of Manuel Zelaya, replacing it with a US-friendly administration. Since then, Honduras has become the most dangerous place<\/a> for journalists in the Americas; labor leaders<\/a>and environmental activists<\/a> have also been regularly targeted for assassination.<\/p>\n

According to a Factiva search, the phrase \u201cHonduran regime\u201d has never appeared in the Times<\/strong>, Journal<\/strong> and Post<\/strong> in the years following the coup, and collectively they used the phrase \u201cregime in Honduras\u201d once: It appeared in a Washington Post<\/strong> article (3\/31\/16<\/a>) about the assassinations of Honduran indigenous leader Berta C\u00e1ceres and other environmentalists in the region, in a quote by a professor critical of US support for Latin American dictatorships.<\/p>\n

While Honduras\u2019s three post-coup presidents have governed a country where \u201cimpunity for human rights abuses remains the norm,\u201d according<\/a> to Human Rights Watch, these leaders have almost never been described as running a \u201cregime.\u201d A Post<\/strong> editorial (9\/5\/09<\/a>) included the only appearance of \u201cMicheletti regime\u201d in any of the three papers. \u201cLobo regime\u201d returns zero search results. The New York Times<\/strong> (2\/16\/16<\/a>) has used \u201cHern\u00e1ndez regime\u201d once, but Factiva indicates that the Post<\/strong> and Journal<\/strong> never have. Searches for \u201cregime in Tegucigalpa\u201d or \u201cTegucigalpa regime\u201d produced zero results.<\/p>\n

Middle Eastern \u2018Regimes\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n

Since the war in Syria ignited on March 15, 2011, \u201cSyrian regime\u201d has been used 5,355 times, \u201cAssad regime\u201d 7,853 times, \u201cregime in Syria\u201d 836 times, and \u201cregime in Damascus\u201d 282 times in the New York Times<\/strong>, Wall Street Journal<\/strong> and Washington Post<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Washington\u2019s economic and military partner Saudi Arabia is described as having a \u201cregime\u201d far less often than is Syria, despite its rather \u201cregime\u201d-like qualities: Its unelected government represses dissidents, including advocates for women and its Shia minority, and carries out executions at an extraordinary clip<\/a>, including<\/a> of people accused of adultery, apostasy and witchcraft<\/a>. Saudi Arabia crushed an uprising in neighboring Bahrain in 2011, and with its US and UK partners<\/a>, is carrying out an almost apocalyptic war in Yemen.<\/p>\n

In the same period examined in the Syrian case, the phrase \u201cSaudi regime\u201d was used 145 times by the same papers, while \u201cregime in Saudi Arabia\u201d registers four hits and \u201cregime in Riyadh\u201d can be found once, in the Post<\/strong> (11\/29\/17<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Saudi leaders can rest assured that their names are unlikely to be associated with running a \u201cregime\u201d: Factiva indicates that the three publications never used the phrase \u201cAbdullah regime\u201d in the relevant period, while \u201cSalman regime\u201d pops up only once, in a Post<\/strong> editorial (5\/3\/15<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The Iranian Revolution culminated on February 11, 1979, and the US ruling class has seen Iran\u2019s government as an arch-enemy ever since. Factiva searches of the intervening years turn \u00a0up 3,201 references to \u201cIranian regime,\u201d in the Times<\/strong>, Journal<\/strong> and Post<\/strong>, as well as 326 to \u201cregime in Iran,\u201d 502 to \u201cregime in Tehran,\u201d 258 to \u201cKhomeini regime,\u201d 31 to \u201cAhmadinejad regime\u201d and five to \u201cRouhani regime.\u201d<\/p>\n

The case of stalwart US ally Israel offers an illuminating counterpoint. Even though Israel violently rules over 2.5 Palestinians in the West Bank and keeps 2 million under siege in Gaza, and even though Palestinians living as citizens of Israel face institutional discrimination<\/a>, the Israeli government is almost never described as a \u201cregime\u201d in a way that carries the negative connotations discussed above.<\/p>\n

A New York Times<\/strong> article (8\/2\/91<\/a>) on the Gulf War used the phrase \u201cthe obdurate Israeli regime\u201d to describe Israeli conduct in regional negotiations. In 1992, a Washington Post<\/strong> op-ed (3\/11\/92<\/a>) called for America to accept Jewish people from the just-collapsed Soviet Union in part because \u201celements in the Israeli regime are quite ready to place the [Jewish people who moved to Israel from the USSR] in harm\u2019s way,\u201d a reference to the idea that Palestinians are a threat to them. A Wall Street Journal<\/strong> article (7\/12\/99<\/a>) employed the term \u201cIsraeli regime\u201d in 1999 to describe Ehud Barak\u2019s administration as taking over from \u201cthe previous Israeli regime\u201d of Benjamin Netanyahu, and a piece in the Washington Post<\/strong> (10\/1\/96<\/a>) used the phrase in the same way.<\/p>\n

Otherwise, \u201cIsraeli regime\u201d appears in the New York Times<\/strong>, Wall Street Journal <\/strong>or Washington Post<\/strong> when the phrase is attributed to critics of Israel (e.g., Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saying, \u201cThose who think they can revive the stinking corpse of the usurping and fake Israeli regime by throwing a birthday party are seriously mistaken\u201d\u2014New York Times<\/strong>, 5\/12\/08<\/a>), or is part of a compound referring to a country other than Israel, as when Egypt is described as having a \u201cpro-Israeli regime,\u201d or Syria is called an \u201canti-Israeli regime.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cSharon regime\u201d yields four results. There are no results for \u201cOlmert regime.\u201d Since Netanyahu returned to power in 2009, Factiva shows, the only use of \u201cNetanyahu regime\u201d in any of these papers was a Washington Post<\/strong>article (3\/1\/15<\/a>); \u00a0there are three instances of the phrase in these papers from his first go-round (1996\u201399). The New York Times<\/strong> referred to Israel as the \u201cregime in Jerusalem\u201d once in 1981 (3\/2\/81<\/a>) and again in 1994 (1\/6\/94<\/a>). \u201cRegime in Tel Aviv\u201d only appears when it\u2019s part of a quote from someone criticizing Israel.<\/p>\n

Calling a government a \u201cregime\u201d suggests a lack of legitimacy,\u00a0with the implication that its ousting (by whatever means) would serve humanitarian and democratic ends; it\u2019s no accident that the phrase is \u201cregime change,\u201d not \u201cgovernment change\u201d or \u201cadministration change.\u201d The obverse is also true: The authority of a \u201cgovernment\u201d is more apt to be seen as legitimate, \u00a0with resistance to it or defense against it frequently depicted as criminal or terroristic. Thus corporate media help instruct the population that the enemies of the US ruling class need to be eliminated, while its friends deserve protection.<\/p>\n

______________________________________________<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/em>Gregory Shupak<\/em> teaches media studies at the University of Guelph-Humber in Toronto. His book, <\/em>The Wrong Story: Palestine, Israel and the Media<\/a>, is published by OR Books.<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Go to Original \u2013 fair.org<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

20 Aug 2018 – A country\u2019s political leaders are likely to be called a \u201cregime\u201d when they do not follow US dictates, and are less likely to be categorized as such if they cooperate with the empire. Calling a government a \u201cregime\u201d suggests a lack of legitimacy, with the implication that its ousting would serve humanitarian and democratic ends; it\u2019s no accident that the phrase is \u201cregime change,\u201d not \u201cgovernment change\u201d or \u201cadministration change.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":117148,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[65,48,62],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-117147","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-anglo-america","category-in-focus","category-media"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/117147","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=117147"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/117147\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/117148"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=117147"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=117147"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=117147"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}