|
BBC complaint
|
|
11 Langley Road, Beckenham, Kent, BR3 4AE tel/fax 020 8650 8843 e: kitty@kmcvey.freeserve.co.uk
05.03.03
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN AT THE BBC, regarding errors in broadcast programmes ("PM", Radio 4 news, and other programmes) concerning the legitimacy of war. This letter is sent to you in friendship, and in confident anticipation that the BBC will respond in a way that reassures me of its deep concern for the highest standards of journalistic integrity and accuracy. But just to ensure this letter does not languish in the huge heap of correspondence you must receive, I'm afraid my next paragraph is going to be a tad blunt ... WHY IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU ACT UPON MY COMPLAINT
That which is said in the media, and that which is important but left unsaid (perhaps because politicans prefer it to remain unexplored) is what forms public opinion - and public opinion determines whether we go to war or whether politicians are pressured to find less harmful alternatives. Polls have shown that public opinion on going to war against Iraq hinges almost entirely on the matter of a second UN resolution - which the public falsely believe (encouraged by media inaccuracy) would make the difference between upholding, or not upholding, international law. Never has it been more important for journalists and broadcasters to use words accurately and to insist that their interviewees do so too. Yet tonight's Radio 4 broadcasts alone, contain 21 errors. Attached are extracts from programmes that were broadcast on Radio 4 tonight (5.3.03). These programmes are not unique in propagating (unwittingly, I am sure) the seriously harmful errors I complain of. They are merely tonight's examples, from a single channel. The partial transcripts are sent to you to help you identify the ways in which inaccurate use of language propagates popular myths about the legitimacy of war and the supposed lack of alternatives to war. My complaint / request for remedial action concerns all BBC programmes on radio and on TV, not just the programmes cited in the attached. Please do not let there be a single further programme which mentions the UN or the lead-up to war without correcting the popular myths about war which have until now been allowed to pass unchallenged. These myths are:
Failure to distinguish between war (which the UN cannot authorise) and those more limited uses of armed force which the UN could authorise, prevents the public becoming aware of a "third way" alternative to war - an alternative which could satisfy both those who want regime change and those who do not want war. This option is "Peace Enforcement" action - military operations which fall short of war, and which are carried out for a purpose which is legitimate in international law - such as bringing the leaders of the Iraqui regime to trial. In addition to insisting on greater accuracy, and more pertinent posing of questions, in your regular programmes, please will you consider doing a special programme, on the "Forgotten Truths" of the United Nations charter, and the little-publicised development by Britsh Armed Forces of doctrine for enforcing peace without resorting to war? Materials that might help your research for such a programme can be found in a dossier I co-edited, which was published last week by the Institute for Law and Peace. There is precedent for the BBC basing a progamme on work done by my co-editor George Farebrother and his colleagues in another organisation - the Legal Inquiry Steering Group. Their Citizens' Inquiry directly inspired the Today Programme's shadow judicial review on 19th December. I have posted this dossier on www.war.inquiry.freeuk.com. It will, as soon as I have time, be accompanied by a list of suggested lines of inquiry which journalists might fruitfully pursue. My aim is to ensure that the "Forgotten truths" of peace enforcement and criminal trial get at least as much publicity as the errors which have recently been propagated. I would far rather that objective were achieved by assisting your researches than by pursuing adversarial avenues. I await your response with interest.
Yours sincerely Kitty McVey (co-editor of INLAP dossier: "Defending the Charter - The United Nations is not above the law - The Security Council can take "Adequate Measures" short of war).
ANNOTATED EXTRACTS FROM ONE EVENING'S PROGRAMMES Broadcast on BBC RADIO 4, 5.03.03. Notes by K. McVey 5.03.03 To be read in conjunction with the Institute for Law and Peace Dossier on www.war.inquiry.freeuk.com - Defending the Charter - the United Nations is not above the Law - the Security Council can take "Adequate Measures" short of war. On 21 occasions this evening (each underlined in the partial transcripts below) words were used on Radio 4 in ways which propagate (or permit to be propagated) the erroneous beliefs described in my covering letter - that war and armed force are the same thing, and that the UN is capable of authorising war. These errors bias public opinion towards war, because they preclude awareness of (and therefore consideration of) other uses of armed force which fall short of war. The extracts that follow are in chronological order, with approximate timings. "PM" PROGRAMME It was stated that France, Germany and Russia have said they would not allow the Security Council to pass "a resolution that authorises war against Iraq" A French interviewee referred, unchallenged, to France's unwillingness to support a "second resolution if it authorises recourse to war action" Someone asked Tony Blair about "the possibility of war without a new resolution". Claire English referred again to the three countries who have today "united to say they won't allow a new resolution to start a war against Iraq". Bridget Kendle referred more correctly to "second resolution to authorise use of force". An annoncer said "Russia France and Germany say they won't approve a UN resolution for war against Iraq - that's our top story". 5.12 pm. In referring to "our top story today ... " the newsreader now describes the three countries as being "against a new resolution which sanctions military action". This is a more accurate statement of what the UN might legitmately authorise (it can authorise only certain types of military action, which fall far short of war) and I wondered if the altered vocabulary was because the newsroom had been advised to correct their mistake. But it seems not (see 5.28 below). Michael Bourke, talking about the Moral Maze, said "overwhelming force looks likely to be wielded on our behalf .... maybe the UN will bless war with a second resolution .... what gives America the right to act as the world's policeman?". There is much conceptual confusion in this statement - police action is not the same as war - it uses the minimum necessary force to arrest suspects and take them to court. Police action is similar to the sorts of military force ("Peace enforcement" action) which could be legitimately authorised by the UN. Both are very different from war and from the sorts of "overwhelming force" which it is anticipated that armed forces may be unlawfully instructed use. Tony Blair's language is very evasive - he talks of there being two ways of avoiding "conflict". No attempt is made to highlight, question or explain the different vocabulary he uses. 5.28 pm. An announcer again refers to the countries which "would not approve a UN resolution which authorises war with Iraq". Michael Moore who speaks for the Liberal Democrats on war praised Tony Blair for having persuaded George Bush "to go down the UN route". Claire English refers to "a legal point .. they need this second resolution else the legality of war looks distinctly shaky". But the brief discussion of legality that follows is ill-informed. There is nothing in Michael Moore's or Claire English's broadcast words to indicate that either understands that the UN cannot authorise war, regardles of what words may be used in any resolution. The nature of the armed force which the UN may authorise is defined in the UN charter. Anyone with a copy of the charter and a word-search facility can easily check that there is absolutely no provision in the charter for authorising war. This is not because the drafters of the charter used evasive diplomatic language - they did not. The drafters of the UN charter used language with great care, to distinguish between war (referred to throughout the charter as a thing of the past, a "scourge" from which it is the sole purpose of the UN to save successive generations) and those very different, less harmful uses of armed force (nowadays known as peace enforcement operations) which the Security Council may authorise, if certain tests are met.
5.30 pm NEWS 5.33 pm. The news reader read out the following phrases: "threatening to veto a second United Nations resolution authorising war against Iraq" "to block any UN resolution which authorises war" There is then a reference to "diplomatic language" and to what it seems might perhaps be the actual words used by those diplomats: "a resolution which would authorise the use of force". The implication seems to be that the UN can legitimise acts that amount to war by calling them something else - but the law concerns itself with the deed that is done, not the name it is known by. Diplomatic language will not protect politicians nor individual members of the armed forces from prosecution if unlawful force (of the nature of war, rather than of the nature of peace enforcement) is used. The job of journalists is to be sceptical, and to hold politicians to account. Their role should involve more than merely understanding the code words of diplomatic language, and more than merely explaining the codes to the general public ("when politicians and diplomats say X, this is usually understood to mean Y"). Journalists should be challenging weasel words, particularly when these words bamboozle the public into believing incorrectly that that which is not lawful (war "authorised" by the UN) can somehow be made lawful by calling it something else. Futher statements by the newscaster in this news bulletin include ... "by threatening to veto a second UN resolution authorising war against Iraq" "to block any UN resolution which authorises war"
6.24 pm "any resolution authorising war with Baghdad"
NEWS AT 7 PM "to prevent the passage of a resolution authorising war against Iraq ... [the UK] have said they are confident that such a resolution will be adopted"
THE MORAL MAZE "what about the moral right to act in the absence of international consensus" [minor point perhaps, but international consensus is not the same as conformity with international law - the action upon which nations unite needs also to conform to the principles of law, and the consensus needs to have been achieved without any arm-twisting which impedes the proper exercise of judgement as to whether the tests for the use of armed force, set out in the UN charter, have been met] "the opposite point of view is that negotiation and pressure will work". Here the presenter poses a false dichotomy. We are not faced with a choice between war and negotiation / pressure. Military peace enforcement is neither of those things, and false dichotomies prevent it being given public consideration.
9 pm NEWS Colin Powell reported to have "brushed aside objections to a new UN resolution authorising war" 10 pm THE WORLD TONIGHT WITH ROBIN LUSTIG This programme makes several accurate references to a possible "UN resolution that authorises the use of force". But it also repeats the error that France has said that it would not "allow a resolution authorising war to pass" "If there is war in Iraq - will it be legal?" Following up Lyn Jones MP's question in the House, asking Tony Blair for assurance about whether a second UN resolution would give "clear legal authority for war with Iraq" Robin Lustig interviews a Professor of International Law at University College London (Phillipe Sans?) . Unfortunately, neither the interviewer nor the interviewee distinguishes between war and other uses of armed force. RL : "resolution 1441 - is that authority for use of force? ... "Serious consequences"- does that phrase have special meaning - is that authority for war? Prof: "it could be" [I think he's been wrong-footed into temporarily equating war with armed force. Even if lawyers on occasion get this wrong, the Army is well aware of the difference. See paper F in the dossier on www.war.inquiry.freeuk.com] - "depends on context - does not amount to clear express authority for use of force - the majority view of lawyers is that without a second resolution the use of force would be plainly illegal". RL then states that voters would be less worried about the prospect of war if there were "clear authorisation from the UN" . Here he is making the case for not making the mistake he has just made in his own statement! NEWS AT 11 O'CLOCK no complaints! TODAY IN PARLIAMENT "Tony Blair says he is confident that the UN will pass a resolution authorising war with Iraq" France et al "declared they would not allow the UN to pass a resolution to authorise war with Iraq" Lyn Jones' question in the House is broadcast - she asks Tony Blair abut whether a second resolution would give "clear legal authority for war against Iraq". I do not know if her question was prompted by the INLAP dossier, which I believe has been sent to all MPs who rebelled last week. However, the question fails (unsurprisingly) to elicit clarity from Tony Blair - and the programme allows this to pass without comment. There are two further references in the programme to a UN resolution "authorising war" NEWS AT MIDNIGHT "A UN resolution authorising an attack ... a resolution authorising war against Iraq ... a resolution supporting military action" - three different concepts referred to as if the same thing. "block any resolution which authorises war" . An interesting reference is made to statements that "went as far as diplomatic language will allow" - but see my comments above on the need for the BBC to challenge, rather than propagate, weasel words used about war. __________________________
A NOTE ON WEASEL WORDS Weasel words are defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as "equivocating or ambiguous words which take away the force or meaning of the concept being expressed". The phrase is apparently based on the weasel's habit of sucking meat or substance from eggs, leaving only the shell. The use of words such as "serious consequences" to mean war is a good example. There is no bar on politicians using the word "war" in documents if they want to - but that would point up any illegality. The generally illegal nature of war is tacitly acknowledged in the fact that war has rarely been declared (though more frequently been fought) since the UN charter and Kellog pact came into being. A dictionary of American slang defines weasel words as "language designed to deceive, self-serving verbiage". I dislike accusing anyone of deception, but it must be acknowledged that whenever Government spokespeople use words in public, those words will have been carefully prescribed to convey the intended message (or lack of message, if the message is an unpopular one). Armies of spin doctors and lawyers will have been deployed to advise on the vocabulary to be used. These people will not innocently confuse "war" and "armed force" as most people might. If the conceptual confusion in the public mind is left unchallenged by journalists, it helps war to be passed off as something less harmful and more lawful than it actually is. |