Bombing Civilian Media Targets

According to yesterday's UN News Service, "Sri Lankan army planes struck the Voice of Tigers radio station near Kilinochchi in the north of the country on the afternoon of 27 November, killing five of the station's staff and reportedly more than five other people". “Regardless of the content of the broadcasts aired by the Voice of Tigers, there can be no excuse for military strikes on civilian media,” said Koïchiro Matsuura (head of UNESCO). “Such action contravenes the Geneva Convention which requires the military to treat media workers as civilians.” Mr. Matsuura stressed that “killing media personnel is not going to help reconciliation” and urged urge the authorities “to ensure respect for the basic human right of freedom of expression".

[deep breath]

So I was wondering - what type of content do they broadcast? Because my first thought was of the radio station in Rwanda that worked so hard to incite and direct the genocide in 1994, including providing locations of weapons and Hutu and Tutsi targets. Literally, broadcasts would provide addresses and license plates and encourage the militia to pay them a visit. I remember reading Shake Hands with the Devil and Dallaire's agony that he could not stop the hate spewing from RTLM. (Check out the first link in this paragraph for a quick introductory article to the conflict around press freedom v. hate crimes from the Columbia Journalism Review.)

In class, we've been examining how all institutions and ideas that seem 'natural' or rock-solid are actually constructions of humanity and history. The idea that we create our own reality has got me questioning some pretty fundamental features of modern society. That idea, combined with the Sri Lankan bombing got me thinking. If a radio station was partaking directly in activities that compromised the safety of thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of people would it be just to bomb it? Or is it always wrong?

Matsuura argues that the bombing contravenes the Geneva Convention because media workers are to be treated as civilians. But do media workers negate that protection when they act as conduits for government or militia information that results in other civilians being killed? To put it bluntly: If you could save 10,000 people by killing 2 would it be just? Which I guess comes down a question of the ends justifying the means.

Just wondering.

(This post is in way meant to condone the actions of the Sri Lankan government. I have no information as to why the government decided to bomb the radio station and I will assume until shown otherwise that it was an incredibly wrong thing to do. Murder is wrong. Especially state-sponsored murder. Which is what bombing civilians is - murder. Plus, it turns out that this is not the first time the Sri Lankan government has bombed a Tamil radio station, they also did it last year. Here is the press release from Reporters Without Borders on the bombing with an emphasis on the importance of protecting the freedom of the press. This post is merely a very brief inquiry into the limits of protection afforded to media personnel in the extreme case where they are promoting crimes against humanity.)