War on terrorism and freedom of the press

Siswo Pramono, Postgraduate Student, Australian National University, Canberra

Public scrutiny of the U.S.-led invasion in Afghanistan has become controversial. This controversy has stemmed from the contending interests between promoting public scrutiny through impartial media coverage and securing military objectives of the warring parties. Once media freedom is curbed, the use of military forces to combat the alleged terrorist groups in Afghanistan will become unaccountable for its objectives and its results. The war will be immune from public scrutiny.

The question is more ethical than technical. Is it proportional for the U.S. to launch a massive military campaign to apprehend Osama bin Laden, the prime suspect of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks?

Is it right for the U.S. to expand the military offensive beyond Afghanistan to include other states suspected of supporting terrorism? Was it worthwhile for the Taliban to wage war against the allied forces at the expense of the Afghan people, solely to protect bin Laden?

Information from the mass media could lead the international audience to decide whether the war against terrorism has been worth the fight in its current form, and to what extent the use of force has been tolerated by an internationally accepted standard of human rights.

As such, the international media must promote transparency of the war to the benefit of the people whose governments are involved in the military action. Public scrutiny of the war against terrorism will never be an easy task. The mass media is beset by some external and internal limitations.

The warring parties in Afghanistan -- the U.S.-led allied forces, the Taliban and the Northern Alliance -- are not ignorant of the importance of war coverage. In this war the belligerents are engaged in public diplomacy, using the media as their main weapon.

The U.S. government is arguably manipulating the western media to win international and domestic public support and secure legitimacy granted by the United Nations backing.

The jingoistic reaction to the early coalition air war victory in Afghanistan suggests that war-making retains deep populist roots in the political culture of the U.S., Britain and Australia, and can be manipulated by political leaders to boost their popularity.

Thus, such as in the case of the Gulf War, Afghanistan could become a playground for the trigger happy political elite, the deadly consequence of which might go unnoticed by the public if the media is impotent.

What is worrying is that there might not be any thorough investigative coverage to depict the real face of the war in Afghanistan. If the Gulf War style of massive bombardment is introduced, the public might not be aware of the possible heavy civilian casualties caused by "dumb" bombs with levels of accuracy estimated at only 25 per cent (Middle East Watch, 1991). Even "smart" bombs can land on wrong targets. In Kabul, guided missiles destroyed the United Nations office, an International Red Cross warehouse and civilian shelters.

Based on the Gulf War experience, foreign journalists covering the war in Afghanistan have reason to worry that the U.S. will impose heavy restrictions on investigative war coverage. The restrictions may be imposed through the journalist pooling system and censorship on journalistic reports (news blackout).

The Taliban's public diplomacy has also been a main obstacle for impartial media coverage. The Taliban has banned use of the Internet in Afghanistan and has thus denied its citizens access to independent sources of information. Many Afghans might not be aware of the casus belli (incidents that triggered the current war) and may rely instead on the official version released by the ruling Taliban. However, it is not known how many Internet users there are in Afghanistan because there are only a few computers available and electricity is limited.

The Taliban has heavily imposed a Gulf War style of journalist pooling system and censorship. Journalist tours are organized by the authorities to cover the "collateral damage" resulting from the allied air strikes. Independent coverage is forbidden.

On many occasions, the Taliban has been hostile to foreign journalists. Several journalists -- a Briton, who has since been released, a French national and two Pakistanis -- entered Afghanistan illegally and were detained and charged with spying, an offense punishable by death.

There are also other causes for the media's incompetence. Western media networking in Afghanistan is very poor, not in terms of technology but sociocultural contacts with the region and its knowledge of it.

Back home, the western media is overwhelmed by the rapid accumulation of public support for Operation Enduring Freedom, an atmosphere to which the western media also contributes to through agenda-setting, priming and framing processes.

As such, the military interests of the warring parties, the media's incompetence and, worse, jingoistic journalism are prejudicial to the public's right to know. Coverage of the war has become yet another means for both sides to win two battles: military victory in the battleground and public opinion at home and the international fora. The war against terrorism is then waged by the political elite without effective surveillance by the public.

A good deal must be attained. While accountability of the use of military force must be upheld through media scrutiny, coverage of the conflict should not be prejudicial to the military strategy in the battlefields.

The U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan must be accountable on both its objectives and results. Censorship and jingoistic coverage will not help achieve this end; it will lead to public deception and the detriment of democracy.

If such a deal cannot be struck, any limited war in the future will be immune from public scrutiny.