The conduct and management of contemporary international relations is increasingly done in disregard to international humanitarian law. States and citizens of the world consciously and unconsciously condone or promote the disregard. Those who disregard international law are majorly the big, powerful countries and their allies. Those who disregard it unconsciously are the weak countries that adopt laisser-faire policy.
In the Russian special military intervention in Ukraine, have there not been allegations of war crimes and genocide? If there are, who is prepared to challenge Russia? War crimes and genocidal crimes are outlawed in international law and relations but who bothers about the war infractions? What does Israel’s genocidal crimes mean to the United States? Who has time to challenge the United States that aids and abets Israel’s genocidal war against Palestinian- Gazans?
Israel’s war objective can be classified into two main groups: declared and undeclared. Declaratively, Israel wants to completely destroy the Hamas, free the Israelis taken into hostage on October 7, 2023, prevent Gaza from being a threat the security of Israel, and ensure the return of displaced residents of Northern Israel. Non-declaratively, Israel’s war behaviour clearly shows an objective of total neutralisation of Gaza, make it completely free from any Palestinian Hamas and facilitate the settlement of Israelis there. This undeclared objective requires also the neutralisation of any obstacles to the objective.
Advertisement
To order your copy, send a WhatsApp message to +1 317 665 2180
Thus, Israel consciously cares less about international humanitarian law obligations. In fact, the internationally-protected people, such as hospitals, non-combatants, children, etc. are the visible victims of Israel’s war crimes. It is precisely the journalists, particularly the war reporters, photo journalists covering conflicts that are increasingly targeted by Israel for killing. This is most unfortunate, especially with the silence over the genocidal attacks on the journalists who are reporting the genocidal attacks.
Israel’s Genocidal Crimes against Journalists
Genocide is not simply about military shooting to kill, but also involves the instrumentality of genocidal acts. When people are deliberately denied access to needed good water, food or medical care, this cannot but be one path to genocide. Indeed, it is an element of genocide. The Israelo-Gaza conflict has been largely characterised by catastrophic hunger in every nook and cranny of Gaza.
It is useful to note at this juncture the importance of the geo-strategic location of Gaza in international relations and why it has become the cynosure of Israeli eyes. As told by a French historian, Jean-Pierre Filiu, who is on record to have written the best-selling book on Gaza’s history, ‘Gaza has been since Antiquity a prosperous oasis and a commercial hub that served as a springboard for any Middle Eastern empire to conquer Egypt and for the Nile Valley-based power to attack the Levant.’
Additionally, and more importantly, the Columbia University has it that ‘this imperial pendulum went back and forth for centuries until the British Army, led by Allenby, entered Gaza in 1917, on the very day that the Balfour Declaration was made public in London. But worse was to come in 1948 with Gaza turning into enclave of a geographical strip and one quarter of the Arab population of Palestine now crowded on only 1% of their homeland, Since then, Israel has waged no less than 15 wars in Gaza, all won militarily but lost politically… except for the first Intifada that paved the way for the first Palestinian peace process.
With Israel’s genocidal attacks, the Hamas has lost much control of Northern Gaza Strip but still showing presence in Southern Gaza and still keeping more than 100 Israeli hostages. The international community has been cautiously condemning Israel over its widespread destruction and death toll but to no avail. The more problematic aspect of the death toll is the conscious targeting of professional journalists covering the war contrarily to provisions of international humanitarian law. Several national laws not only recognise, but also assigns specific roles to professional journalists in the conduct and management of international peace and security beyond their basic roles of public information and education.
Again, when discussing the protection of individual journalists, it is important to differentiate between the state protection of journalistic information, the sources of such information, preventing obstacles to investigative journalism, and confidentiality, etc. on the one hand, and the safety and security of the individual journalist, on the other. Member Nations of the international community have regulatory provisions on the safety of journalist.
For example in Britain, there is the Human Rights Act of 1998 which protects the right to freedom of expression, that is, the right to receive and impart information which is a major pillar of journalism. The need to protect confidential journalistic sources is also recognised by British courts. In fact, there are also the Online Safety Act of 2023 and the National Security Act 2023, both of which are still generating much debate. The importance of the need to ensure the safety of journalists in Britain can be better appreciated in the context of the establishment of a National Committee for the Safety of Journalists.
In France, there are constitutional guarantees for free expression and media independence. France gives active support to international conventions and initiatives to safeguard journalists in armed conflicts. UNESCO’s efforts to establish national safety mechanisms and the European Media Freedom Act are also supported. Put differently, Article 34 of the French Fifth Republic Constitution provides for the freedom, pluralism, and independence of the media. And true enough, France not only upholds the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), which protects journalists from political interference, enforce media editorial independence, and improve transparency in media ownership, but is also actively committed to the Council of Europe’s Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)4 which deals with the prevention, protection, prosecution, and promotion of the safety of journalists. France is an active supporter of the Journalism Trust Initiatives by Reporters without Borders (RSF), which is fostering reliable information and ethical journalism.
At the level of international law and relations, there is no specific international convention on the safety and independence of journalists. What exist are frameworks of initiatives like the UN Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity as well as the International Federation of Journalists that has drafted a Proposed Convention for the Safety and Independence of Journalists.
Without whiff of doubt, the United Nations has a Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists. It is the primary framework meant to create a safe and free environment for journalists to ensure the prevention, protection and prosecution of crimes against journalists in the course of their professional duties. The official reports of the Director-General of the UNESCO are also noteworthy. They monitor attacks and assess the effectiveness of national protection frameworks.
In spite of the comprehensive frameworks aimed at protecting journalists worldwide and in spite of the provisions of international humanitarian law, how do we explain the little or no respect for the protection of journalists in international security relations? The UN General Assembly is on record to have passed several resolutions calling for action to end impunity for crimes committed against journalists in the course of their official duties and call for action to strengthen the implementation of the UN Plan of Action. Why is Israel flagrantly engaging in genocidal crimes against the Hamas? Why is the world keeping mute on the aftermath of South Africa’s court case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ)? Why are countries in Africa keeping mute on the annihilation of professional journalists in the prosecution of their official duties? All journalists fall under the internationally-protected citizens of the world. Why is the world not applying the rule of IR2P (International Responsibility to Protect) in this case of Israel’s glaring genocide? What really are the international obligations created by international law and why are they not respected but only respected in violations? What are the implications and particularly for the future of Africa. Like Nigeria, who has the foreign policy objective of respecting international law and treaty obligations?
Implications of International Silence
The first interpretation of non-action against impunity for genocide is deductive complicity or endorsement of the alleged genocidal crimes. Under normal circumstance, the UN Plan of Action is to be executed by UN Member States and all stakeholders. Professional associations and organisations, governmental and non-governmental organisations ought to work together to implement the UN Plan of Action. They are supposed to jointly ensure that all those who engage in genocidal crimes are brought to justice, as well as raising public awareness and advocating legislation and policies aimed at protecting journalists.
Even though the United Nations has designated every November 2 of each year as the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists, the recidivist Israeli genocidal crimes against innocent journalists have become unacceptable. The implication of not seeking to end impunity is an express invitation to more genocidal crimes. It is a wrong signal that genocide is a permissible crime. Whenever it is committed, heaven will not fall is the belief.
It is because heaven may not fall that explains why the International Federation of Journalists, in its draft International Convention on the Safety and Independence of Journalists and other Media Professionals (vide ifj.org) showed deep concerns in Article 12 of their Convention that ‘despite these various instruments and undertakings, media professionals continue to face barriers in the exercise of their professional role because of their investigative work, opinions and reporting, including killing, torture, violent attacks, forced disappearance, arbitrary arrest and arbitrary detention, expulsion, intimidation, harassment and threats of violence.’
Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides for the fundamental right of freedom of opinion and expression, that is, the right of holding opinion without interferences from others, seeking and receiving information, as well as imparting ideas, communicating information in various forms (oral, written, artistic, or any other chosen media). The ICCPR is a multilateral treaty done on 16 December, 1966 by the UNGA and which entered into force on March 23, 1976. It commits Member States to the respect of individual’s civil and political rights. Its basic principles include the right to life, prohibition of torture, freedom from slavery, liberty and security, equality before law, freedom of thought opinion and expression, freedom of assembly, right to legal resource, right of privacy, etc.
Although the General Comment No. 34 of the Human Rights Committee has clearly shown that Article 19 of the International Covenant is not absolute or that the right to freedom of opinion and expression has limitations, as the right still requires the respect of the rights or reputation of others, protection of national security, protection of public order and protection of public health.
In the same vein, UNSC Resolution 2222 (2015), which was adopted at the 7450th Meeting on 27 May 2015, noted in its preamble the deep concerns about ‘the frequency of acts of violence in many parts of the world against journalists, media professionals and associated personnel in armed conflicts, in particular attacks in violation of international humanitarian law’ In terms of implications, it simply means that the whole global community is much aware of the fact that there have always been frequent violations of the right of journalists, that journalists have always been victims of recidivist violence, and that these indecent attacks on journalists violate the provisions of international humanitarian law.
If we admit of these deductive implications, and if we also admit that these violations and mistreatment of journalists have a recidivist character, what is it that should be done to international law beyond review? In the event of review, can international law still compel compliance by States? Is international law not meant for the weak countries to respect? What does international law mean in the context of Russian attacks on Ukraine? What does it mean when sovereign states support a side in the civil war situations in other countries?
UNSC Resolution 2222 (2015) also urged all parties to armed conflict to do their utmost to prevent violations of international humanitarian law against journalists, media professionals and associated personnel. There is also the UNESCO Resolution 29 of 12 November 1997 that condemned violence against journalists. The Medellin Declaration on ‘Securing the Safety of Journalists and Combating Impunity’ which was proclaimed on 4 May 2007 also exists. The UN Human Rights Council Resolution 33/2 of 29 September 2016 also has provisions on non-attacks on journalists. Consequently, it is not that there are no laws prohibiting genocide but no good laws that can compel compliance.
The most critical issue as of today is no more about violence or attacks but about taking life out of journalists. It is no longer about brutalisation but crimes against God almighty. If journalists are combatants and they are freely killed, the story will be different. But killing and destroying medical personnel in hospitals that are internationally protected, killing people carrying cameras and not weapons, killing people who report and inform, not only one group of people or countries, but universally, is most ungodly. It is most wicked and uncalled for. In fact, one act of wickedness is a definiendum for future unrests. This is why the whole international community should be more concerned about the question of genocide.
In the context of Israel’s genocidal crimes, the Netanyahu government simply wants to cover up its crimes. Israel does not want to be seen as engaging in torture, forced disappearance and killing of journalists. This is why in the military strategic calculations of Israel, emphasis is placed on killing the agents that have the means to portray the situational reality of Israel’s genocide.
And true and disturbingly enough, how do we explain the choice and particularity of the journalists being targeted for killing? One rationale cannot but be the tact and doggedness of the journalists for succeeding in either disseminating information on the obnoxious killing of internationally-protected people in Gaza and which Israel is finding very difficult to deny. As Israel still wants to acquire or extend its territorial sovereignty to Gaza, particularly to the Gaza strip, the strategy cannot but be to continue to seek the neutralisation of whoever has the potential to reveal Israeli killing of non-combatants that the journalists really are.
In this regard, for how long and to what extent can Israel continue to seek territorial expansion? International law prohibits Israel’s turning forcefully-acquired Palestinian territories during the 1967 and 1973 wars into its own. The United States is sustaining Israel’s intransigence. The implications of this are beyond what the United State can have the capacity to manage in the foreseeable future. First, it has the potential to erode the current trust in the United Nations and its system. The United Nations does not have an eternal obligation to maintain its headquarters in New York even if the Charter of the United Nations specifically provides for its location in the United States. The clause can be reviewed anytime by collective withdrawal of membership from the UN. If the review is made impossible in light of Articles 108 and 109 of the UN Charter because of the requirement of two-thirds majority that must include the votes of the Nuclear Weapons States or the UNSC Five Permanent Members, regional offices of the United Nations can be created and then the United States can then remain an America of Americans only. We people in Africa that admire the good spirit of America will be first to suffer from the delinking.
Secondly, the continual disregard for international law has the potential to turn genocide into acceptable norm sooner than later. This cannot and should not be acceptable. Africa must not only jettison this type of value in the mania of lesbian or LGBT marriages that are being proposed for adoption by Africa as shared values. The way the United States is going about the issue of Israel’s policies of territorial expansion, condoning genocide and recklessly killing journalists and flouting the provisions of international law is evil, devilish, and obnoxious.
Thirdly, and true enough, the disregard for international law is simply strengthening the arguments of the power school of thought. Power is everything. There is nothing like moralism in international politics. African leaders and journalists should note this situational reality of international relations. Disregard for international law is a kind invitation to more genocidal crimes by Israel and beyond.
The United States is using its abuse of international law to strengthen Israel’s genocidal crimes. Nothing could be more shameful for the good American people who have been preaching the gospels of human rights, rule of law, constitutional democracy, fairness and justice to have a new America under Donald Trump that is now consciously throwing the principle of pacta sunt servanda into the dustbin of history. In diplomatic practice, every diplomatic mission is considered exterritorial in its receiving state, meaning that the municipal law of the host country is not applicable. This is why the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Missions expressly provides for prior permission of an accredited Ambassador before his host government can enter his diplomatic mission. As such, the United Nations Headquarters in New York is not and cannot be subjected to the whims and caprices of American politics because it creates a political and administrative lull when people intending to attend UN meetings must first obtain US entry visas but are refused. True, the US has the sovereign right to issue or refuse its entry visas. The problem, however, is that the US does not have special entry visas for visitors to the UN headquarters. The US revocation of entry visa already issued to the Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas and 80 Palestinian officials allegedly for undermining peace efforts and for seeking ‘the unilateral recognition of a conjectural Palestinian state,’ to borrow the words of Marco Rubio, the US Secretary of State, is most unfortunate. This conflict between International law and the US municipal law is a resultant of the Israelo-Palestinian conflict and increasing criticisms of Israeli genocidal crimes against Palestinian Hamas and journalists. The genocide must stop unconditionally because of its many negative implications.
