Why NATO Killings at Libya Television Violate International Law

The government of Colonel Gadaffi in Triploi has condemned the killing of three journalists and injuries to many other media staff at Libyan State Television following a NATO air strike on Saturday as a violation of international law and a war crime. There is every reason to believe they are right.

A military strike against unarmed media staff and journalists is forbidden under international humanitarian law and runs counter to the United Nations Security Council resolution 1738 adopted in December 2006 which called on all UN member states to take action to protect media staff working in conflict zones.

The targeting of journalists is a relatively recent phenomenon and NATO are serial offenders. In January 1999 NATO struck at RTS in Belgrade, the state television controlled by the government of Serbian strong man Slobodan Milosevic. They did this only days after a written assurance to the International Federation of Journalists that they would not target the network.

Then as now NATO justifies the attack on the basis that Libyan state television is being used for propaganda by a political tyrant. That may be so, and it may understandably get on the nerves of politicians, but under international law that is no reason to kill unarmed civilians. 

Once armies start targeting journalists because they don't like the stories they tell there is a danger that every journalist in a war zone becomes a potential target.

Military action can be legitimate, but only if there is evidence of incitement to violence or if the broadcaster is being used for strategic purposes in the prosecution of a conflict. NATO have failed to provide any convincing evidence.

Of course, there are some moments when it is right to fire on media. An early strike against Radio Mille Collines in Rawanda, when it was activly promoting genocide and the killing of  Tutsis by rival Hutu gangs, for instance, may have saved hundreds of lives in the 1990s.

But in the case of Libya as in Serbia, and other similar incidents in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon in recent years, attacks on media have been designed not to save lives but to counter propaganda. And as in all of the other cases, it has lamentably failed. Within hours of the smoke clearing in Tripoli, the state broadcaster was back on the air.

The NATO strike is a dangerous action that puts in peril hundreds of journalists and media staff and not just in Libya. In dozens of conflicts zones around the world one side or another may now feel more relaxed about targeting media or journalists they don't like. If NATO is free to kill those putting out messages it doesn't like, they might say, why can't we?