Two stories struck home to me today because they are bound together by a statement made thirty years ago.
In Iraq, the story is of the captured peace campaigners now being paraded on video. This was entirely predictable – and, frankly, avoidable. When people travel to war zones, they are taking a significant risk of being killed or injured. This particular war zone involves the added risk of kidnapping and the consequent propaganda war, before the victims are horribly murdered. Norman Kember and his colleagues knew this before setting out for Iraq, but they went anyway. It is a supreme, if naive, arrogance to presume that one’s religious fervor is sufficient justification to go to a war zone and preach peace. As someone who opposed the war, I sympathize with their objection and their desire for peace in the region, but going there in the middle of a messy war not only places themselves at risk, it is causing risk to anyone charged with their welfare, anyone charged with finding and rescuing them (should such an attempt occur) and it provides insurgents with an easy means of placing the US and UK governments under pressure. This kind of emotive blackmail helps no one. Then, there is the pain caused to relatives and friends.
Shortly after the Ken Bigley fiasco, Mark Steyn commented on the matter of hostage taking. His advice (and I quote from memory as the piece seems no longer to be on-line) was
“pack heat and be prepared to use it.”
His advice being, that under no circumstances allow yourself to be taken alive. Far better to go out in a shoot-out and take a few of the bastards with you than be taken alive, used as propaganda and be brutally beheaded. It would also avoid the need for any attempt at rescue and spare friends and relatives the horror of the alternative. I suppose asking peace campaigners to pack heat would be too much though…
Winding back thirty years, there is a story in the Times about happenings in East Timor when Indonesia invaded the place with the tacit complicity of the British government. Indeed, papers now released tell us that the British government lied (gasp):
In a startling insight into foreign complicity in Indonesia’s invasion of the former Portuguese colony, the documents show that Britain used its position as chair of the United Nations Security Council to “keep the heat out of the Timor business” in discussions in the UN.
Two British journalists working for Australian television were murdered while covering a clandestine attack carried out by Indonesian and Timorese soldiers opposed to independence. The two were killed, it is presumed, to stop this getting out. Their bodies were burned and only a few charred bones were recovered. The British government knew about this and put pressure on the Australian government not to press for answers from Indonesia that were already known. Sir John Ford, Britain’s ambassador in Jakarta said this:
“We have suggested to the Australians that, since we, in fact, know what happened to the newsmen it is pointless to go on demanding information from the Indonesians which they cannot, or are unwilling to provide,” Sir John wrote. “Since no protests will produce the journalists’ bodies I think we should ourselves avoid representations about them.”
Perhaps, though, the most telling quote is the one that still rings true today:
“They were in the war zone of their own choice,”
Before we get into too much hand wringing about Norman Kember and his party, let us remember that they, too, are in a war zone of their own choosing.
I agree. I find it hard to have a lot of sympathy for someone who deliberately puts themselves in a war zone for no good reason. Same goes for someone working abroad in an unstable country just because it pays well.
Hmm, not sure about this one when it comes to journalists, obviously religious zealots are a little different, they have an agenda based on the imposition of their beliefs. Journalists are doing a job by reporting the news as they see it to us. If it were not for many of these men and women, we would only have the State Department line. This is often no better than amaturish agit-prop and has precious little news value.
If you take Iraq now and contrast the party line from the British and US military with Robert Fisk the differences are clear. In the case of the Timor question it was the work of investigative journalists keeping E. Timor on the agenda that meant that activists such as Xanana Gusmao from Fretilin and Falintil did not all just disappear.
The British government whilst trying to claim the Hawk jets that were sold to Indonesia were for training purposes were shown to be complicit with the Indonesian invasion and once again continued investigations kept up the pressure
”’Longrider replies: I’m not particularly criticising investigative journalists. However, they do have to weigh up the risks and do everything they can to minimise them. Journalists are – if they are truly independent – carrying out a vital role. My criticism was of the “peace campaigners” who, with heart in the right place put themselves in a dangerous one and in the process drag others into their situation.”’
”’What struck me was the comment being made thirty years ago and its relevance today.”’