By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, August 9 -- After the UN Security Council on Tuesday discussed NATO's bombing of Libya state television, Inner City Press asked Council members for their views.
Russia's Permanent Representative Vitaly Churkin said he had raised the matter, along with the bombing of radar at Tripoli airport, oil and other infrastructure.
When Brazil's Deputy Permanent Representative came out, Inner City Press her for Brazil's position on NATO bombing the Libyan state TV station. "We are opposed to it," she said.
The Chinese position includes points to conventions and a previous Council resolution, 1738, against targeting journalists or media personnel.
It appears that NATO's defense now is that while it targeted the TV station because it incited harm to civilians, its bombing did not as reported killed any journalists.
But should media, even the physical facilities of broadcasting, be targeted?
One Western spokesperson said that NATO is now saying that it was not targeting the TV station, but rather a "parabolic" satellite dish.
When UK Deputy Permanent Representative Philip Parham told Inner City Press that NATO is investigating the incident, Inner City Press asked if that meant NATO is backing away from its defense of targeting a TV station. I'm not suggesting they are backing away from that, DPR Parham said, adding they are investigating what happened.
This seems to mean that NATO will dispute any report that any civilian, particularly a journalist or media worker as defined in Resolution 1738, was injured -- but will stand by its right to bomb any broadcaster or media engaged either in hate speech (Rwanda-style) or even inciting the harming of civilians, seemingly a lower standard. We'll see.
