For Rent: Bullet-Proof Jackets
Interview with Séverine Cazes from Reporters sans frontières about journalism during the war in Iraq
Like no conflict before, the war in Iraq had immediate consequences for press coverage. At the beginning, the "embedded correspondents" attracted (self-) focus of the media. Very soon it became evident, that the press was paying an unprecedented high death toll. Another new development took place on April 14 near Tikrit, when a CCN convoy received fire - and a privately hired bodyguard shot back. Telepolis talked about the dramatic developments and their potential meaning for the future with Séverine Cazes from the human rights organization "reporters sans frontières", Paris ("Reporters Without Borders"). She is responsible for the Middle East.
In September 2002 reporters sans frontières received the "Dr. Erich Salomon Price" for photojournalism of the German Photographic Society. On that occasion, I learned that the impulse for founding RSF in 1985 was to support reports from remote areas that are usually not covered by mainstream media. How did RSF become a human rights organisation?
Séverin Cazes: I do not have personal experience from the early days of RSF, but 25 years ago it was the idea to promote topics and reports that were not fashionable, so to say, and which were not on top of the media agenda. It turned out to be difficult to change the laws of the media. But then it also became clear, that work of journalists from remote countries often did not appear in Western media because journalists were oppressed, not because of lack of interest. This realisation has caused the shift in RSF¹s objectives to defend the freedom of the press.
Twelve journalists have been killed in Iraq or are missing during just three weeks - that is about one percent of all international correspondents in Iraq. In former Yugoslavia, "only" 56 reporters were killed over a period of eight years. Why do you think are the current numbers so high? Is it just because there are so many journalists at the frontline?
Séverin Cazes: That¹s for sure one reason. There is no precedence for such a media mobilisation. In addition there were many different fronts, in the South, in the North, and different other places. With the embedding policy, one had very close proximity between soldiers and journalists. And there was extraordinary pressure on non-embedded journalists and on media, who choose not to report within the US or coalition embedded system.
Who caused the pressure? The media, the military?
Séverin Cazes: From all sides. From media, because you had much higher competition compared to 1991. Especially because of the Arabic TV channels, which did not exist in 1991. When Kuwait was invaded, public opinion was not as much divided, as it is today. This also contributes to public expectations and pressure on journalists. Just a couple of days after the breakout of the war it appeared that a kind of hostility and sometimes contempt was present on the side of coalition forces towards non-embedded journalists.
Are you thinking of, for example, Dan Scamama from Israel, who entered Iraq as a non-embed, together with two colleagues? They were stopped with force and arrested by US-Marines, his colleagues even beaten, until all three were brought back to Kuwait by US military.
Séverin Cazes: Yes, this is one example. There were various incidents in which journalists were caught under coalition fire, for instance, a team from Al-Jazeera received fire from British troops in Basra. Some non-embedded journalists were really mistreated and hassled when they tried to cross the border between Kuwait and Iraq. We also observed that the number of journalists killed is about the same as the number of journalists wounded. Which somehow shows how "efficient" modern warfare can be. Usually the number of wounded reporters is much higher than the number of killed ones. But you do not observe it in this war.
After Christian Liebig, a German reporter from Focus magazine, was killed last week, it was said that he had always behaved very cautiously. On that specific day he even refused to enter Baghdad with US forces for security reasons. Cynically phrased: Should journalist act more aggressively in order to survive?
SC: We believe that the attitude of CNN to hire private armed bodyguards and personnel is problematic and might put in danger the rest of the journalists. The embedding policy already confuses the line between fighters and journalists. Hiring bodyguards intensifies confusion. To us it is very important that journalists remain unarmed, in order to benefit from the protection of the Geneva Convention. It's very clear that the CNN reporter was not carrying a weapon himself, but his bodyguard was. It's a trend that should not be favoured. Although we know it had happened in the past, in Somalia and Afghanistan. But this time was quite different, because in Iraq it is an ongoing war not just insecurity caused by lawlessness. The problem in Somalia was public order, it was robbery, it was lack of security. It was not an actual war, like it is in Iraq. The protective method chosen by CNN represents a potentially dangerous trend because in the future it may be hard to argue that journalists are civilians and that they are unarmed.
On German TV news I heard of the incident, that someone had fired on a CNN team. But it was not mentioned that a privately hired bodyguard fired back.
Séverin Cazes: It was mentioned by press agencies. I think, even CNN mentioned it themselves. We really understand the worries on how to protect your own staff, we are really concerned about this topic. We have been doing a lot of things in this regard. For example, we can lend bullet-proof jackets to free lancers. All they have to do is to come to our office in Paris and lend one for free. This shows how concerned we are about the safety of journalists. But we believe, that the attitude, in a country at war, to have in car both a journalist and someone carrying a weapon who might fire back - of course not attacking - even if it is in defense, it will increase the confusion between fighters and journalists. It may result in very negative consequences for all the rest of the reporters. We are not trying to settle any accounts with CNN, we are concerned about the future of a journalist in a war zone.
On several occasions in the news one could see the war photographer James Nachtwey doing his job in Baghdad. He is well known for always being in the middle of crowds taking his pictures, not from a distance. As usual, he was just wearing a white shirt. No flak-jacket, no helmet. What is he doing differently than others?
Séverin Cazes: He has his own concept of security. He is very experienced. I think he worked out his own protection system. We appreciate that every journalist has his own system to reach the same goal- security. Everybody is appalled by the very high tribute paid by journalists in Iraq. We believe that the methods used by CNN the other day, could have negative consequences in the future.
The day before Baghdad fell, three journalists were killed through US military actions. The office of Al-Jazeera was bombed by a war plane and an AFN cameraman filmed the US tank firing at the Palestine Hotel. Are RSF involved in any investigational initiatives?
Séverin Cazes: We have written to the International Humanitarian Fact Finding Commission to request an investigation and we would like to see it independent and international. The Commission is located in Bern and was founded in 1991. Its job is to investigate any alleged violation of the Geneva Convention. Since we have serious allegations, that it might be a war crime, the bombing of the Al-Jazeera office and of Palestine Hotel, we would like the Commission to conduct the investigation in order to know the truth about what happened. And if then, if it really was a war crime, there should be an adequate procedure to be taken in order for sanctions or trials.