War Crimes Tribunal in Kuala Lumpur

[dereklane]

Exchange with BBC's Jonathan Kent on the War Crimes Tribunal in Kuala Lumpur:

Dear Mr Kent,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6336333.stm

Regarding the conference in Kuala Lumpur, your article
is littered with distractions neither balanced nor
informative. I wonder how this could be for a BBC
journalist, of whom I am certain the charter demands
balance and impartiality.

Yet curiously, it is you who accuses Dr Mahathir of a
lack of impartiality regarding world affairs. But Dr
Mahathir was not sitting on the tribunal, whereas it
appears you have made your judgement.

You also tell the reader about a writer by the name of
Alfred Lambremont Webre, who "claims to have uncovered
a vast conspiracy to profit from wars. He's also
keenly interested in intelligent extra-terrestrial
life."

Is it impartial to link the former sentence (a fact
widely accepted and proved, not least through the very
obvious links between Cheney and Halliburton; CBS said
this: "Lautenberg said the report makes clear that
Cheney does still have financial ties to Halliburton.
"I ask the vice president to stop dodging the issue
with legalese," Lautenberg said. "
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/politics/main575356.shtml)

with the latter, which is unsubstantiated and probably
unprovable? It seems to me that you have intentionally
shaded the irrefutability of the former statement
(almost undeniably true) with the nature of an 'easy
target' relating to the latter.

You tell the reader that

"Dr Mahathir is busy signing autographs. A woman
passes him a copy of her programme to sign.

"Oh Dr Mahathir", she coos, "you're more handsome in
person than you are in photographs." "

But why? Are there not more pressing issues concerning
the conference than whether or not Dr Mahathir has
personal admirers? Would you waste time on the same
topic regarding Blair as he discussed the crimes of
Saddam Hussein?

It appears to this reader that you have intentionally
made light of some very serious issues in order to
discredit the notion that Bush and Blair are war
criminals.

Need we continually refer back to the fact that Kofi
Annan called Iraq 'an illegal war' and the Nuremburg
Tribunals seems to cement this fact? In the light of
your article, it appears this is a matter trivial
enough to be undermined by a woman flattering Dr
Mahathir.

Whether or not the west chooses to sentence their own
war crimes is immaterial to the facts, neither is it
relevant that the accuser is not the Dalai Lama.

As a BBC journalist it seems you have flouted your
charter to remain impartial. There is much from this
conference that the world might have benefited from
hearing as they happen, rather than from the
perspective of your opinions.

I would recommend reading the AP story for an example
of objective journalism.
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/2/7/nation/20070207171740&sec=nation


Kind Regards,

Derek Lane

----------------------------

Jonathan Kent responded on the same day, with a long and detailed letter:

Dear Mr Lane

I was asked for a colour piece about the conference, not a report on
the issue of war crimes.

There are dozens upon dozens of serious peace conferences the world
over that get serious coverage. This one was organised by a man with a
highly questionable human rights record who used the event to call on Iraqi
insurgents to kill as many Americans as possible. In Dec 2005 year he
invited Robert Mugabe to participate at the last such event - without
telling many of the other panellists he'd invited - many of whom were
outraged.

It was clear from talking to some of those invited to speak at the
conference that they'd simply been happy to accept a free air ticket
and hospitality without having any real idea about the event they're
lending credibility to. More than one was unaware that Dr Mahathir was the man
who threatened to shoot Vietnamese boat people if they tried to land in
Malaysia, who interned political opponents without trial, who presided
over the Anwar trial, refused to sign UN conventions on torture, refugees or
endorse the UDHR, who debased the Malaysian judiciary, allegedly
trained insurgents in neighbouring countries and hobbled the country's media.

The KL Expose War Crimes conference - in typical Malaysian fashion -
was also rather disingenuous about what war crimes it was interested in.

For instance the exhibition the organisers staged attacked US and British
bombing in WW2 and failed to mention the 20 million killed by the
Japanese - tens, if not hundreds of thousands of them here in what was then
Malaya.

As for Mr Webre the conspiracy he speaks of involves Masons,
Bilderbergers, Zionists and Satanists to name but a few - rather than Exxon and
Haliburton (read the Malaysiakini interview).

My colleagues in Washington and Iraq are busy holding the US to account
- I see no reason why the US' critics shouldn't face tough questions too.

But if you wish to discuss the matter further do feel free to give me a
ring or skype me

best wishes

jonathan

Jonathan Kent

----------------------------------

I responded a few days later:

Hi Jonathon,

Firstly, thanks for a detailed and considered letter,
and also for the promptness. Unfortunately I was sick
late last week and unable to respond, so apologies for
my tardiness.

You say that you were asked for a colourful piece
about the conference and not a report on the issue of
war crimes. Whilst this perhaps absolves you from
direct accountability, you must appreciate that from
the reader's perspective, it does not help much.
Indeed, it tends to lend weight to the idea that the
BBC calculates its attacks of leaders not content with
the position of the US and the UK, writing colourful
pieces about such as Chavez, Morales (to name a
couple) and of course, Dr Mathathir, yet never seeming
to decide the same editorial stance is necessary for
leaders such as Bush, Blair, or Howard.

If you could show me a place where these leaders - at
least as reprehensible in regard to their positions on
human rights (and moreso in most places; Howard with
his detestable policy on immigrants,
children-overboard, far worse than Mahathir's threat,
and being the proud owner of the title from the UN as
the only western nation with specifically racist
legislation against Aborigines, or Bush and Blair with
their 655 000 dead in Iraq, torture and rendition
flights and Guantanamo Bay et al, plus two wars of
aggression - to date - both of which contravene
sovereignty and human rights in bounds) have been
subject to the same light-hearted 'colourful'
interpretation by a BBC journalist, I might be
inclined to see your point.

Unfortunately, it seems that such style is only
employed against those who threaten the governments of
either the US or the UK, despite the fact (as I
mentioned in the previous email) that it appears to be
in contravention of the charter of the BBC itself to
write in such a way.

You write that he is a man who "[called] on Iraqi
insurgents to kill as many Americans as possible".

But this is a position defended under international
law (the right to resist occupation by whatever
means). Whether you agree with it or not does not make
it wrong. The occupier's position, however, is
tentative at the best of times, and the subsequent UN
rulings do not excuse the previous act of aggression.
Nevertheless, an occupier must do everything in their
power to ensure the safety and well being of the
occupied. With Iraqi infrastructure failing completely
and civilians dying in record numbers, whilst the
building of US prisons and a giant embassy building
goes ahead without a hitch, is it your understanding
that they are doing their best to ensure the safety
and well being of ordinary Iraqis?

You say he "refused to sign UN conventions on torture,
refugees or endorse the UDHR", but then so has the US,
the UK, and on refugees and a proper endorsement of
the UDHR, John Howard. It is the primary reason why
until very recently, refugees were languishing in
prisons in the desert of Australia, without hope,
without knowledge of where they were at in their legal
proceedings, and with suicides rising steadily, in the
young and old.

It is the primary reason why Aborigines are in a
situation in Australia as bad as that of apartheid
Africa. Where is the 'colourful' article on Howard?

It appears to me that either the BBC should stand by
its charter all of the time, or it should abandon all
pretence and embark down a path similiar to that of
the Sun (that being where those disliked by management
are treated with contempt, and those liked are
heralded). It cannot go both ways.

If you are serious about the fact you believe that
western leaders should be grilled in detail about
their participation in war crimes, I suggest you ask
your editor why you were asked to do a colourful piece
on the war crimes tribunal in Malaysia.

You say "There are dozens upon dozens of serious peace
conferences the world over that get serious
coverage.", but the fact is that there are few or none
that put Bush, Blair and Howard in the light as war
criminals.

That is a crucial difference, and one which has had
little coverage from the BBC. If we must wait for the
Dalai Llama to indict this trio of war criminals (a
man who is distinctly apolitical) then it strikes me
that the odds are stacked against it. The reasoning
that suggests this to be a good course to take makes
little sense. The political is best positioned to make
sense of and effectively attack the political. The
most likely candidates for sharing with the world the
reality of Bush and Blair's crimes are not the Dalai
Lamas, but the Chavez's (with a record cleaner than
any western leader in terms of his regard for the
sanctity of human life), or even the Putins. I am sure
you are aware of this.

There was a very real chance to get the reality of our
leaders' imperial record out in the open with the
conference in Malaysia, and it was missed by BBC, by
what appears to be a combination of editorial decision
and willing journalists, neither of which should have
occured given the BBC charter regarding impartiality.

Kind Regards,

Derek Lane

------------------------

He responded, again very promptly:

Sorry Derek

I know we won't see eye to eye but my job is covering Malaysia. And I
have to say that even Malaysians (read the letters on www.Malaysiakini.com)
thought it was dubious that Mahathir wanted to claim the moral high
ground - and Malaysians are strongly against Western involvement in Iraq.

I don't buy the 'right to resist the invasion of a sovereign state'
stance. Mahathir's thugs smashed up a conference on East Timor held in KL in
1996. He had several journalists covering the event arrested - and East Timor
was a sovereign state invaded by Indonesia.

Anyway, as I said you're welcome to ring if you want to chat about it
(KL is GMT +8 BTW)

cheers

jonathan


Jonathan Kent


-----------------------------

Jonathan,

"I don't buy the 'right to resist the invasion of a
sovereign state' stance."

It is not for you to 'buy'. It is enshrined in various
facets of international law, including the charter of
the UN and the laws of belligerent war 1907.

"Only the national popular resistance is legal in
Iraq. It’s legality and legitimacy is enshrined in
numerous instruments of international law, including
foundational and peremptory documents such as the UN
Charter.[ix] It should be recognized as a combatant
army and as the continuity of the Iraqi state. "
http://www.brusselstribunal.org/ResistanceLegal.htm

East Timor at the time of the conference was not a
sovereign state. But that is not the point, nor is it
relevant. Suharto should have been put on trial for
his war crimes of the genocide of the largest
proportionate group of the 20th century. He was not,
most likely because he had close ties to both the US
and Australia during much of the course of his reign.

Even now, Australia is meddling in ET affairs with the
insistence that the Timor Gap treaty, signed by
Australia with Indonesia, should be honoured by the
fledgling state. It is, as I see it, a significant
part of much of the reason Alkatiri was 'removed' last
year, because he stood in the way of Australian power
in the region of oil and gas in the Timor Sea.
International Law (that regarding the substance of
international borders and how they are defined, the
Law of the Sea) meant nothing to him. A treaty signed
with one of the tyrants of the 20th century was more
important to 4 successive Australian government,
culminating with Howard, than the rights of humans.

I have not seen such stated or even alluded to from
the BBC regarding Australian and US roles in the
Suharto regime and the subsequent destabilisation of
East Timor, yet when a 'lesser' tyrant rocks the boat,
we must gently chide them, assuring ourselves that
they have no moral high ground. I would think the
continued and active destabilisation of a country only
just seeing its hard won independence would count for
a great deal more cynicism/wrath from a seasoned
journalist than would a leader who exercises his
support for the dictator whilst voiding himself from
significant personal meddling.

The issue is not about moral high ground. There are
few world leaders with even a skeric of the stuff
(though again, some South American leaders spring to
mind). The issue is the validity of their statements,
particularly in relation to the news feature you
cover. More analysis of that, and less of the personal
'colouring' according to preconceived convictions
(yours or your editors) would go well in BBC's current
journalistic style. If the news is about a war crimes
tribunal, a discussion of the most pertinent points
raised by that tribunal would be of more benefit to
the reader than whether or not you or I would like to
have Mahathir round for tea.

Thanks for the offer of skype - I don't use it. I am
happy to continue this debate via email, if you wish.

Otherwise, thanks for your time,

Kind Regards,

Derek Lane

-----------------------

Derek

all I can say is that given the welter of criticism of the BBC for
being a namby pamby leftist anti American, Blair bashing beast (and do bear in
mind we lost our last director general in a row over whether the British
PM's office had 'sexed up' the WMD dossier making the case for invasion of
Iraq) it's in a way (though a rather strange way) reassuring to know we're
equally unpopular with the other camp.

Keep up the good fight -

jonathan


Jonathan Kent

-------------------------

Hi Jonathan,

"it's in a way (though a rather strange way)
reassuring to know we're equally unpopular with the
other camp. "

If I had a pound for every time a BBC journalist has
told me that! Being unpopular with 'both sides' does
not determine balance or impartiality. Impartiality
should ensure that there is no real issue to be had
from either side, or any fair points to be made in an
attack. I know a few people that noone else I know
likes; that doesn't necessarily make those unliked
people 'fair'. At best, it makes them definitively
unlikeable. It is not a badge of honour to find
solidarity from noone.

On your director-general, I recall he was fired by the
board, presumably due to the government's ire. The
government, of course, is responsible for the periodic
renewals of the BBC license-fee system, and the
government did not like the executive decisions made
by Dyke at the time. Hence the full and unreserved
apology on television, and the subsequent firing of
the Director-General.

You will understand if I don't see this as a point to
back your argument, but mine.

Kind Regards,

Derek Lane

-----------------------

(There may be more to follow - I only posted my response this morning).