|
Iraqi
Television: A Legitimate Target? On March 26, the United States used Cruise missiles and bombs in an attack on Iraq’s main television station and other broadcasting facilities. The attack took Iraqi satellite TV off air for a few hours, but later in the morning both Iraq’s domestic and satellite stations were broadcasting again – albeit in some areas with a weaker signal. Attacks on broadcasting stations are a common part of modern warfare, but remain controversial under international humanitarian law, which specifies that only targets that make “an effective contribution to military action” may be attacked. Announcing the raid, the Pentagon said its intention was to damage “the regime’s command and control capability.” Britain’s Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon used nearly identical language – saying that the targets were “part of the military command and control structures,” and that they were treated “as other parts of the communications system that allows the military to operate in and around Baghdad are similarly dealt with.” Nevertheless the timing of the attack – coming after Iraqi TV had caused outrage in the United States by broadcasting images of dead U.S. soldiers and the questioning of POW’s – raised suspicions that it was motivated by the desire to stop Iraqi propaganda from being shown. “The bombing of a television station simply because it is being used for the purposes of propaganda is unacceptable,” said Claudio Cordone, Senior Director for International Law at Amnesty International. Aidan White, General Secretary of the International Federation of Journalists, said the attack appeared to be “an act of violent censorship that breaks the Geneva conventions.” The recognised definition of legitimate military objectives comes in the first Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 1977: “Those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.” It has been generally recognized in international law that TV and radio stations can make a contribution to military action as part of the network of command, control and communication, and therefore that they are legitimate targets under certain conditions. The problem comes in deciding whether they are being attacked for this reason, or instead because of their propaganda value – which has not generally been regarded as a contribution to military action. In other words, the complications and controversy surrounding attacks on broadcasting facilities stems in large part from the fact that the legality of the action depends on the intention with which it was carried out, as well as the nature of the attack itself. During the Kosovo war in 1999, NATO’s strike against the studios of Serbian television became the most disputed single action of the conflict. After the war, the prosecutor of the War Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (which has jurisdiction over all actions committed within the old boundaries of the country) asked a committee of experts to advise whether this attack should be investigated as a war crime. The committee said the studios were a fair target since the military and civilian communications systems could be routed through each other’s facilities. But a NATO spokesman had defended the attack in different terms, saying that part of the objective had been to “dismantle the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia propaganda machinery.” Part of the problem is that there is no consensus about where to draw the line between military communication and propaganda. For instance, when Saddam Hussein is shown on television in military uniform, exhorting his supporters to rise up and “slit the throats” of U.S. troops, is that a contribution to military action or not? An open debate about when broadcasting organizations can lawfully be targeted – particularly in a conflict where irregular fighters and militia groups who fight among the civilian population are centrally involved – might be beneficial both for humanitarian and military reasons. Related chapters from Crimes of War: What the Public Should Know: Legitimate Military Targets
|