The U.S./UK war: How about peace journalism?

Johan Galtung Professor of Peace Studies Founder, Co-Director Transcend: A Peace and Development Network galtung@transcend.org

If a journalist dons a U.S. uniform, gets a temporary "major" title and reports in terms of "we", then he is not "embedded" with the U.S. Army. He is a part of that army, and no longer a journalist. No journalist with a sense of dignity and autonomy would ever do such a thing. Journalists should be honest, convey U.S./UK headquarter communiques, then challenge them on a truly independent basis.

But this does not mean that the alternatives, "unilateral" journalists, are doing perfectly. The BBC World Program has an admirable range of perspectives on the conflict, and on the war. Al Jazeera does an excellent job reporting what happens on the ground where missiles and bombs wreak havoc as opposed to the standard images of planes taking off aircraft carriers on their "missions" of death and destruction. Hopefully they will not be bombed under the pretext of conveying hidden messages.

There is a rich variety of investigate journalism revealing how the U.S./UK have been trapped in their own propaganda about the population longing to greet them with flowers; most of the Iraqi army doing as instructed in the millions of leaflets dropped on them, no struggle, capitulation, desertion; massive uprisings against the Baath regime; a six days walk, and all is over.

And they got only occasional welcomes and desertions, and extremely intense defense. Iraqi forces are "combative" as the U.S. Command is complaining. In their good-evil dualism there was no third category of Iraqis, maybe the majority, who hate the Saddam Hussein regime and any foreign intrusion, particularly by the old colonizer and the new one aiming at an occupation regime. There are even elementary mistakes like overextended, badly protected supply lines. And, is a Shia uprising compatible with invading their sacred land and sacred city, Karbala?

With such gaps between myth and reality U.S./UK credibility is of course below zero. But revealing that, however laudatory, is not what peace journalism is about. Peace journalism starts with two questions: What is the underlying conflict about? And are there any peaceful solutions to that conflict? Let us look at some themes and what could have been done much better.

o Weapons of mass destruction. The focus is on the classical A-B-C, atomic-biological-chemical, and on the U.S./UK contention that they are hiding, and the UN Security Council majority contention that inspections are working.

The journalists focused much too much on the dog fight between the two, and much too little on how the inspection regime could have become more effective. There were many interesting ideas in the French-German proposal of a prolonged, in-depth regime that were not given sufficient critical attention. Many more inspectors, lightly armed UN blue helmets, and human rights regimes.

Moreover, there was too little challenge of the basis of the U.S./UK intelligence, particularly of why and how they removed 8,000 pages from the 12,000 Iraq report and the pressure brought to bear on Security Council members. But that is critical, more important is the constructive approach.

Only one point: How about strategies of mass destruction even if the destruction is not delivered in one single weapon, as a bomb or canister? How about the "Mother of all Bombs", E-bomb and thermobaric bomb in the U.S. arsenal of intensive massive "shock and awe" destruction? Could something in the WMD formula get U.S./UK off the hook to focus on Iraq?

o Oil. Some of this war is about oil. Maybe Iraq should have contemplated some U.S./UK access to their oil reserves given their demand and distribution capacity? By offering 0 percent maybe they stimulated U.S./UK urge for 100 percent control through occupation?

o The future of Iraq. There is an alternative to a unitary state run from Baghdad controlling Kurds, Sunni and Shia alike: An Iraqi federation with three parts and a federal capital, maybe not in Baghdad. Like Switzerland in four parts, and the capital is not in Zurich.

But how about Kuwait? Once a part of the same part of the Ottoman Empire it was detached in 1898 by the UK empire as a protectorate for black gold reasons; with border problems, deposits under the border, harbor problems, river problems.

This can only be solved through some joint regime, of course retaining Kuwait independence. Could the relation between Switzerland and Liechtenstein be an answer?

These are problems to probe and explore, in no way denying the importance of war journalism and investigative journalism.

o The Kurds. Could a solution be a Kurdistan based on a confederation of autonomies in Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey? With double citizenship and passports for Kurds? People have ideas, put a searchlight on them, stimulate a positive debate.

o The Middle East. With whom do the Iraqis want to relate, given mainly bad relations with the six neighboring countries? But Iran now has massive demonstrations against the U.S./UK war, Syria is helping smuggling military hardware, Turkey at great economic sacrifice refuses to become a staging area, same with Saudi Arabia. Even in Kuwait there is ambiguity. Jordan is too hard pressed.

How about giving more reality to the 10-nation Economic Cooperation Organization, from Turkey to Afghanistan, covering 12 million square kilometers, maybe 400 million inhabitants, an enormous potential. And for Israel-Palestine: Maybe a Middle East Community of six nations, Syria-Lebanon-Palestine-Israel- Jordan-Egypt with open borders, for security and cooperation?

There are so many possibilities. Journalists, explore them!