UN fragmented over NATO strike on Libyan television
Senior UN officials are saying quite different things about the acceptability of NATO’s airstrike last month on some of the Gaddafi regime’s media equipment. The alliance argues that the regime has been using broadcasts to incite attacks on civilians and that its attack disabled equipment without killing civilians. The head of UNESCO, Irina Bokova, was ...
Senior UN officials are saying quite different things about the acceptability of NATO's airstrike last month on some of the Gaddafi regime's media equipment. The alliance argues that the regime has been using broadcasts to incite attacks on civilians and that its attack disabled equipment without killing civilians. The head of UNESCO, Irina Bokova, was not swayed:
Senior UN officials are saying quite different things about the acceptability of NATO’s airstrike last month on some of the Gaddafi regime’s media equipment. The alliance argues that the regime has been using broadcasts to incite attacks on civilians and that its attack disabled equipment without killing civilians. The head of UNESCO, Irina Bokova, was not swayed:
I deplore the NATO strike on Al-Jamahiriya and its installations. Media outlets should not be targeted in military actions. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1738 (2006) condemns acts of violence against journalists and media personnel in conflict situations.
The NATO strike is also contrary to the principles of the Geneva Conventions that establish the civilian status of journalists in times of war even when they engage in propaganda. Silencing the media is never a solution. Fostering independent and pluralistic media is the only way to enable people to form their own opinion.
Meanwhile, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon apparently sees no problem with the strike. In response to a question, his spokesperson had this to say:
The secretary-general believes that resolution 1973 has been used properly in order to protect civilians in Libya and he has continually emphasized the need, as this proceeds, to make sure that civilians in Libya will be protected.
The legality of the strike is certainly open for debate, but Bokova makes a significant omission in citing UN Security Council resolution 1738. Paragraph 4 of that resolution specifically considers situations in which media is being used to incite attacks against civilians and suggests that steps in response can be appropriate:
Reaffirms its condemnation of all incitements to violence against civilians in situations of armed conflict, further reaffirms the need to bring to justice, in accordance with applicable international law, individuals who incite such violence, and indicates its willingness, when authorizing missions, to consider, where appropriate, steps in response to media broadcast inciting genocide, crimes against humanity and serious violations of international humanitarian law.
More broadly, Bokova’s categorical statement ignores entirely the experience during the Rwandan genocide, during which radio stations played a critical role in inciting killing. The question is whether the situations are comparable. NATO could significantly bolster its case by producing transcripts of recent broadcasts that directly incited violence against civilians.
David Bosco is a professor at Indiana University’s Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies. He is the author of The Poseidon Project: The Struggle to Govern the World’s Oceans. Twitter: @multilateralist
More from Foreign Policy

Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.

The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.

Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.

How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.