THE FIRST CASUALTY OF WAR IS TRUTH WRITES PHILLIP DARKIE MBANYANA
The contrast between freedom of the press and the suppression of that right has always been understood along the difference between democratic and despotic forms of governments. A state deemed to be democratic would ordinarily be assumed to be the one which respects individuals and groups rights. Whereas the opposite would hold for states categorised as undemocratic.
States which have adopted Constitutions which embodies a chapter on human rights, base their protection of rights on the fact that these have been expressed in their respective Constitutions and charters and therefore should be understood as cast in stone. What however remains unsaid is that the interpretation of these rights is a permanent subject of the courts or parliaments depending on the nature of each state.
The question of human rights is a question cutting across all states. It extends to include those states whose for some reason may have adopted a stance which elevates their independence and places it beyond the dictates of any regional bloc or institutions such as the United Nations and any of its related organs. To some, human rights is seen along the lines of some religious beliefs dominant in the said locality. In the different scenarios and depending on where the opinion maker is located, how information is disseminated will largely be influenced by the circumstances
Recently the nations of the world had to bear the war between Russia and Ukraine which had so far dragged on for a period more than a year. In the course of the Russia/Ukraine war, a number of freedoms were violated with deadly acts affecting individuals and the future of those states. When the war erupted, nations of the world were affected. Nations haboured their own interests and could only wish for an outcome that would not affect them and the interests they haboured. An outcome that would enable the sustenance of relations, either political or economic, which bound those nations.
An interesting occurrence with the Russia/Ukraine war was when a decision was taken by the European Union to suspend the Russia Today and Sputnik channels. These channels because of their connection to the state of Russia, which is involved in a war with Ukraine, could have been become a threat to the European Union interests in so far as the reporting was concerned. There was no way that a pro-Russia media outlet could broadcast and freely disseminate information conflicting the pro-Europe media.
The Israel/Palestine siege also saw attempts aimed at throttling media with a view to redirecting how information should be reported and how social media should respond during the siege. The Israel/Palestine situation had always carried with conflicting opinions from individuals and states adopting either a ‘for-or-against’ stances. The Middle East situation in so far as Israel and Palestine are concerned, is not about morals or the economy. It is largely a religious issue. Religion is a universal ship from which the many religious movements exist.
As was the case with the suspension of Russia Today and Sputnik, outlets such as X and Facebook have been reminded by the European Union on the need to comply with the European online content rules. Disinformation should always be scorned at to arrest the dangers it carries. This can only mean one and only thing. It means that the content which these outlets disseminate should serve the position of the European Union which had chosen a side in the Israel/Palestine on-going siege.
The 1948 Universal Declaration of the United Nations in so far as the freedom of the press is concerned provides that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers”.
The catastrophe of the EU warning on the online outlets is that it places itself about right enshrines in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A right which is a right only if it satisfies the interests of a certain party is no right but a priviledge. When consumers of information are limited from receiving certain information because it goes against the interests of a certain party and their interests, such deprivation can never find justification as it goes against the right receive and impart information.
People are creatures of information and they make their determinations on the basis of contradictions and different nuances. On the Israel/Russia debacle, it seems there has been only a single nuance which the EU had embraced and would prefer to see being the only one to be embraced by all.
The cliché which says ‘the first casualty of war is truth’ finds application in what we are currently observing. That the Hamas group infiltrated a border and killed hundreds of revellers and kidnapped women and children amounts to a war crime according to international law. Cries for perpetrators to be punished had been heard and are justifiable. However, the displacement of a people, bombing of buildings coupled with the killing of women and children gets to acquire a different meaning of “right to self-defence” since the perpetrator is a different party.
In times of war, is the moment when the independence of the media is challenged. It is the moment when those with power get to exercise it and create a narrative suitable for them. A great communications team therefore becomes critical. At this point, by ‘great’ is not meant a perfectly objective team. Rather is meant a team capable of influencing and shaping the public opinion.
Independent media outlets, depending on the regulatory framework unfortunately stand to find their reporting leaning more to the regulation makers and political subjectivity is therefore bound to triumph.
Those to have read the Animal Farm by George Orwell, will recall the character named Squealer. He mastered communication on behalf of Napoleon the leader, perfectly painting the person of Napoleon to the extent that even the good taste of water was attributed to him. Outside of the Animal Farm, George Orwell had this to say about the freedom of the press, that “if it means any anything at all, means the freedom to criticise and oppose”. To criticise and oppose are freedoms of the present. They cannot be exercised ex-post-facto.
The events which unfolded in the Middle East in the recent, though largely viewed on the ‘for and against’ eye, have exposed how power can be used to advance a narrative. As alluded previously in this piece, it cannot be correct to proffer a different meaning to crimes against humanity for the ‘for’ camp and proffer another for the ‘against’ camp when all elements of the crime have been met in both scenarios.
The two instances of war which have been cited in this piece, both happen to have history behind them. In both of these instances, history is a great influencer to what is unfolding. With the said history being contested, it is common cause that there will always be a contestation on which is the correct narrative reflecting history and which narrative should reach the public. However, when only a single narrative is forcefully sponsored, truth will remain evasive.
Phillip Darkie Mbanyana is the Director of DM Solutions, a former legal practitioner and a community activist writing in his personal capacity.
Leave a comment
