Chapter 5: Conclusions

The progress of media coverage in the war against terror and the ongoing Iraq War reflects an ever-changing agenda in the reasons and marketing of war.

As Robert Fisk notes: "First it was to be a crusade. Then it became the "War for Civilization". Then the "War without End", Then the "War against Terror"."[2] Although the war in Iraq was promoted as a prong in the war against terror, the link proved tenuous[3]. Yet the capure of Saddam Hussein is still widely promoted as a victory in the 'war against terror'.

Meanwhile alleged economic motivations bubbled under the surface until in June 2003 the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz claimed that the real motive for war was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil[4]. He had previously alluded to weapons of mass destruction as being a "bureaucratic" excuse for war which "everyone could agree on".[5] Meanwhile Sir Jonathan Porritt, head of the Sustainable Development Commission, which advises the UK government on ecological issues, said the prospect of winning access to Iraqi oil was ``a very large factor'' in the allies' decision to attack Iraq in March.[6]

In the UK, the propaganda over the Iraq war 2003 culminated in the Hutton inquiry 'into government spin'[7] regarding the suicide of government advisor Kelly affair. In light of the Hutton inquiry, revelations by senior politicians such as Wolfowitz and the resignations of British MPs Claire Short and Robin Cook[8] over accusations of the UK Prime Minister misleading the public and parliament over the reasons for war, it would be pleasing to argue that tolerance of propaganda has diminished. And that there are real pressures to replace the centuries-old propaganda 'black art' with a system of transparency and accountability. Yet both George Bush and Tony Blair have recently been re-elected.

There is no doubt however, that such a change is long over due. The implications of war propaganda are enormously far reaching. It is no wonder therefore that the HRC proposed the prohibition of war propaganda as a non-derogable right, but a great wonder that its prohibition is so little publicised and discussed, let alone respected.

The issues surrounding the prohibition of war propaganda are complex. From a legal perspective they involve problematic arguments about the legality of war, the declaration of states of emergency, the ratification, reservations and reporting on the ICCPR and the domestic codification of an internationally illegal practise.

The media meanwhile are at the behest of commercial, governmental, ethical and legal influences and responsibilities, attempts to find a balance (or not) between all four. 

Meanwhile a whole range of rights, including freedom to information and expression, freedom from discrimination, academic freedom, freedom of the press, the right to a fair trial and even the right to life, are interwoven with the prohibition of war propaganda in an intricate web of mutually supporting human rights.

The illegal status of war propaganda appears to provide flimsy recourse to those wanting to enforce its prohibition and protect the human rights it denigrates. Indeed, it could be argued that the human rights system has failed to deal adequately with the issue of war propaganda, with states too able to ignore, rather than deal head-on with, or even acknowledge there is a problem.

International Humanitarian Law also has a stake in the propaganda process. The ICHRP (2002) notes a worrying trend in war rhetoric to carefully choose language so as to avoid positive legal responsibility. The ICHRP comments:

"Use of language has always been important, of course, to propaganda. However, careful use of technical language is perhaps an emerging feature of news manipulation. During the 1994 Rwanda crisis, when the United States and other countries were reluctant to become involved, the United States Department of State insisted in referring to 'genocidal incidents' in Rwanda, rather than to 'genocide' because the second term would have triggered a legal obligation to act whereas the first formula did not."[9]

Just as propaganda can be used to evade international legal responsibility in this way, so too it can violate human rights and override important national and international decision making processes regarding the conduct of war.

There is a clear link between the use of war propaganda and the undermining of rights and processes necessary to democracy, the most obvious of which is its denial of an informed body of citizenship. States which practise war propaganda in the ways described throughout this paper are therefore potentially unable to maintain or claim true democratic status and values.

As a point of optimism, although war propaganda diminishes human rights, so respect for human rights can diminish the effects of war propaganda. In 1999, Mary Robinson as the then United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, highlighted this valuable connection: Robinson remarked:

"Accurate and timely human rights investigations can dispel the propaganda and rumours which fan the flames of conflict. In many conflicts, the perception that vicious atrocities have been committed against one's own people is the fuel used by leaders to ignite feelings of injustice and demands for retribution against the 'other'.

"Combatants commit further atrocities and the conflict spirals. This has been recognized by Special Rapporteurs as they seek to sift the truth from war propaganda. To ignore proper human rights reporting during armed conflict is to surrender to the best propaganda machine.[10]

Propaganda is a powerful communications function, of that there is no doubt. The prohibition of war propaganda needs just as powerful a means of communication, in educating the public and governments about their responsibilities and the implications of ignoring them.

 

References

[1]  http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html