Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Saturday, January 27, 2018

‘It’s a death sentence’: Palestinians in Jerusalem brace for Trump aid cuts

For refugees in the densely packed Shuafat camp, a UN agency facing US funding cutbacks is the closest thing to a government


Oliver Holmes and Sufian Taha in Jerusalem Sat 27 Jan 2018 05.30 GMT

In one neighbourhood of Jerusalem, no one is quite sure who their government is.

The suffocatingly dense district of Shuafat is a Palestinian refugee camp that has grown into a maze of illegally built high-rises, but the Palestinian Authority has no power here.

Israel considers Shuafat under its jurisdiction – its residents pay tax – yet people say the only state presence they feel is when soldiers come in.

Sewage spills on to the road, rubbish burns in old oil drums, and there is no mail system. Few streets have names. Israeli ambulances and fire trucks won’t enter.

So for many residents of Shuafat, the closest thing to a government is the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, UNRWA.

The body was set up to help Palestinians uprooted in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war – at the time considered a temporary crisis. In the absence of peace, UNRWA has continued operations for seven decades, running schools, clinics, sanitation efforts and shelters.

But the aid agency is in crisis after Washington targeted its funding. For the residents on the crowded streets of Shuafat, already notorious as the drug and crime centre of Jerusalem, an end to UNRWA would mean the collapse of nearly all their infrastructure.

Donald Trump says he is using humanitarian aid to Shuafat and more than 5 million Palestinians across the Middle East as leverage to force their leaders into signing up to his yet-to-be-detailed peace initiative.

“That money is on the table and that money’s not going to them unless they sit down and negotiate peace,” he said on Thursday, sitting opposite Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.
Cutbacks have already started. Last year, the US was the single largest donor to UNRWA, paying $355m, close to half its operating budget. This year, it has contributed $60m.

Blocked off by Israel’s separation barrier, there is only one exit from Shuafat into the rest of Jerusalem, through a military checkpoint. There are no accurate figures regarding how many people live in the camp, which was annexed by Israel after 1967, although UNRWA estimates about 24,000 live there.

Khalid al-Sheikh, 48, works in the Palestinian Child Center, a group in Shuafat that runs reading, music, yoga and other activities.

With overcrowding in schools – up to 46 in a class, al-Sheikh says – the group hopes to reduce psychological stress in a neighbourhood he describes as a “prison”.

A week ago, the girls’ school run by UNRWA was raided by thieves who stole computers. “There are hardly any janitors, no guards,” he said.

“If it was bad before, imagine the situation after. Trump’s decision: it’s a death sentence to the children of the camp,” he said. “If you remove these services, people have nothing left but their dignity.” He warned that the result would be violence.

Shuafat has a history of attacks, both criminal and political. In 2015, the Times of Israel described the camp as a “ticking time bomb”.

Chris Gunness, a spokesman for UNWRA, also warns of the danger of cuts. “Is it in American and Israel security interests to have the collapse of a functioning service provider in Jerusalem?” he asked.

UNRWA also works across the West Bank and Gaza, where Trump’s Middle East policies have met an explosive reaction.

A joint Palestinian-Israeli poll found support for militancy among Palestinians jumped 17% immediately after the US president said he would recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. The declaration broke international consensus that the city’s status would be negotiated by the two sides.

 Trump now says that issue is off the table.

More than half of the Palestinian refugees UNRWA supports live in other countries –Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. In Lebanon, slum-like conditions and state discrimination in camps regularly lead to clashes with the army.

“We run schools for over half a million children across the region,” said Gunness. “Imagine if those services were to stop ... You would have half a million children on the streets of the Middle East and not in UN schools at a time when extremists are in full recruitment mode. How does that fit with the counter-terrorism narrative of western governments? How does that contribute towards stability in the Middle East?”

UNRWA’s commissioner-general has been travelling around the world meeting governments and individuals in an attempt to cover the shortfall. A public campaign, named “dignity is priceless”, has launched online.

For the moment, Gunness says UNRWA is determined not to make any cuts: “We are robustly determined to maintain services because we are talking about some of the most disadvantaged people in the region.”

Celebrities back Palestinian refugees as Trump makes new threats

US President Donald Trump meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the gathering of global elites in Davos on Thursday. (via Facebook)

Ali Abunimah- 26 January 2018

Prominent actors and artists are rallying to support UNRWA, as US President Donald Trump issues new threats to cut funding to the UN agency that works to meet the basic humanitarian needs of five million Palestinian refugees.

“We stand for dignity for the most vulnerable, and we stand with Palestinian refugees who are facing a terrible moment,” the celebrities say in a statement published by the Hoping Foundation on Thursday.

Among those speaking out are actors Hugh Grant, Gillian Anderson, Emma Thompson, James Fox and Tilda Swinton; writers Hanif Kureishi and Will Self and directors Ken Loach and Stephen Frears.
Also endorsing the statement are musician Brian Eno, fashion designer Bella Freud, artist Tracy Emin and soccer greats Eric Cantona and Gary Lineker.

A former England captain and now a BBC sportscaster, Lineker was recently the target of an Israel lobby backlash for tweeting his outrage at the mistreatment of Palestinian children detained by the Israeli military.

“Peoples across the world have always supported the Palestinian struggle for freedom, and understand that Palestinian refugees – the most vulnerable – are the key to hope, and to any chance of a peaceful future,” the celebrities say.

They call on the UN secretary general to “immediately convene a conference that can establish a stable funding system in order to protect UNRWA’s vital work.”

Israel seeks to destroy UNRWA as part of its effort to erase the right of return of Palestinian refugees from the international agenda. Israel opposes allowing Palestinians to return to the homes and lands from which they were ethnically cleansed because they are not Jews.

Trump threats

The Trump administration has already withheld $110 million in planned contributions precipitating what the agency has called “the worst financial crisis in UNRWA’s history.”

But on Thursday, the president made more threats to cut aid.

Speaking next to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the gathering of global elites in the Swiss resort of Davos, Trump accused Palestinian Authority leaders of disrespecting the US by refusing to meet Vice President Mike Pence during his visit to the region earlier this week.

“That money is on the table and that money is not going to them unless they sit down and negotiate peace,” Trump told reporters. “Because I can tell you that Israel does want to make peace, and they’re going to have to want to make peace too, or we’re going to have nothing to do with it any longer.”

Trump also repeated his assertion that his decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital – which has been rejected by Palestinians and much of the world – meant that the future of the city was “off the table” in any negotiations.

That flies in the face of assurances Trump gave in December that his statement on Jerusalem and his decision to move the US embassy there did not mean he was taking a position on “any final status issues, including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, or the resolution of contested borders.”

Trump asserted at the time that “those questions are up to the parties involved,” to be resolved in negotiations which, following his latest outburst, now look more unlikely than ever.

Punishing civilians

But while a “peace process” remains a vanishingly remote prospect, further damage and suffering for Palestinians is imminent.

On Wednesday, the leaders of 21 international humanitarian agencies wrote to the Trump administration objecting in “the strongest terms” to the funding cuts to UNRWA.

The groups, including Save the Children, the American Friends Service Committee, Catholic Relief Services, Oxfam and Islamic Relief, said the cuts would have “dire consequences” for “life-sustaining assistance to children, women and men in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and the West Bank and Gaza Strip.”

“This decision is aimed at punishing Palestinian political leaders and forcing them to make political concessions,” said Eric Schwartz, president of Refugees International and a former US assistant secretary of state. “But it is wrong to punish political leaders by denying life-sustaining aid to civilians.”

Top Trump aides, including son-in-law Jared Kushner and UN ambassador Nikki Haley, have pushed for the harsh cuts as a way to force Palestinians to concede their rights.

Education at stake

Further drastic reductions in US assistance would likely force UNRWA to cut the education of more than half a million children, according to Sara Roy, author of The Gaza Strip: The Political Economy of De-development.

“Unlike other UN agencies that may face draconian budget cuts, such as the World Food Program, which can proportionately reduce the amount of food it distributes (which is itself tragic), UNRWA cannot provide a third less education to its students,” Roy wrote for The Nation this week. “It would have to end the provision of education in order to preserve other life-giving services, principally in health.”

According to Roy, UNRWA “was nearly forced to do this during a financial crisis in 2015, and it will likely have to do so now.”

The US has been the largest single donor to UNRWA, providing almost $370 million of the agency’s $1.2 billion budget in 2016.

#DignityIsPriceless

In an effort to head off the looming disaster, UNRWA, which is largely funded by voluntary contributions from governments, is turning to the public to help raise urgently needed funds.
The agency had made its direct fundraising appeal the most prominent feature of its website.

student makes unprecedented appeal to Pope Francis @Pontifex from the Church of Nativity in , in response to UNRWA financial crisis. Part of the global fundraising campaign. “Support our quest to preserve education; our dignity is priceless”.


Gaza writer Omar Ghraieb was among many social media users using the hashtag #DignityIsPriceless to talk about UNRWA’s work.
Let's talk about @UNRWA & the important work they do for Palestinian refugees everywhere. I'll speak about because I live here. This will be a thread. This isn't sponsored by & I dont work for them. Not a fan foreign aid but UNRWA is needed.
“During field work and journalism, I’ve met families in southern rural areas who lost everything during Israel’s assaults and rely on UNRWA for free education, food and healthcare,” Ghraieb tweeted. “They’d have nothing without UNRWA. Not exaggerating.”

New Orleans repeals BDS resolution


Under fire from pro-Israel groups, New Orleans City Council rescinds measure to investigate corporations for human rights violations

Activists gather at New Orleans city council meeting, 25 January (Chana Rose Rabinovitz)

Ali Harb's picture
Ali Harb-Saturday 27 January 2018

The New Orleans City Council rescinded a human rights resolution backed by Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) advocates after pressure from pro-Israel politicians and groups.
The short-lived resolution, which was withdrawn on Thursday, recommended removing corporations that violate human rights from the city's list of contractual partners, but it did not specifically mention Israel or Palestine.
The New Orleans Palestinian Solidarity Committee had pushed the measure, known as R-18-5, which drew the ire of Israel’s supporters immediately after its passage.
Max Geller, a member of the New Orleans Palestinian Solidarity Committee, said city officials had been “cowardly” in succumbing to pressure from the Israeli lobby.
Still, opponents of the measure had called the resolution bigoted and unjustified.
There’s nothing anti-Semitic about non-violently resisting state violence.
-Max Geller, New Orleans Palestinian Solidarity Committee
“The BDS movement, which has inherently anti-Semitic components, is designed to challenge Israel's economic viability and very right to exist,” the Jewish Federation of Greater New Orleans (JFGNO) said in a statement on 12 January, a day after the measure was passed.
In a joint statement, JFGNO and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) welcomed scrapping the resolution, saying that BDS “does not advance the discussion towards meaningful resolution and peace between Israelis and Palestinians, or a workable two state solution.”
The BDS movement started as a call by Palestinian civil society activists for a peaceful means to resist the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. They liken their movement to boycott calls against the apartheid government in South Africa in the 1960s.
BDS critics accuse it of anti-Semitism because it targets Israel.
Geller told MEE that Israel’s supporters are only interested in maintaining the “apartheid practices” of the Israeli government.
“There’s nothing anti-Semitic about non-violently resisting state violence,” Geller said in defense of BDS. “There’s nothing anti-Semitic about putting an end to ethnic cleansing and allowing people to stay on their own land.”
Council members felt a backlash from pro-Israeli groups “immediately” after the resolution was passed.
"Almost immediately, my fellow council members and I received sharp criticism for the manner in which the resolution was passed, as well as the unintended, but serious consequences of its passage," Mayor-elect  LaToya Cantrell said in a statement.
Although she authored and introduced the measure, Cantrell added that its "unintended impact does not reflect my commitment to inclusivity, diversity, and respect and support for civil rights, human rights and freedoms of all New Orleanians."
New Orleans-based Republican State Senator Conrad Appel‏ had called the pro-BDS resolution “absurd.”
Outgoing Mayor Mitch Landrieu also said in a statement that the resolution does not represent the policy of the city, calling the measure "gratuitous."
Even outside New Orleans, pro-Israel politicians slammed the resolution, with South Carolina State Representative Alan Clemmons calling for a boycott against the southern city.
One after another, council members started distancing themselves from the pro-BDS measure that they had approved.
Council President Jason Williams, who co-sponsored the resolution, said he had to educate himself about BDS and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict after R-18-5 was passed.
“Let me be very clear to citizens of New Orleans and citizens of the world; this city council is not anti-Israel,” Williams said in a statement. “That sentiment is inconsistent with the council's actions and certainly mine personally.”
However, BDS activists say city officials knew exactly what they were voting on, and Williams had cited the boycott against apartheid in South Africa while discussing the resolution.
The council president did not return MEE’s request for comment.
Geller said council members are acting like they did not know the aim of R-18-5, which “doesn’t jive with reality".
He said Palestinian rights activists had had dozens of interactions with council members before 11 January and every single time, they introduced themselves as the New Orleans Palestinian Solidarity Committee.
Despite the disappointment, Tabitha Mustafa, an organiser for the Solidarity Committee, said the repeal of the resolution is not a loss for BDS.
She explained that the affair has put Palestinian suffering and Israeli abuses in the public eye.
"We haven't lost anything. This is a victory. I would like to say thank you to the Anti-Defamation League and the Jewish Federation of Greater New Orleans for getting out the word about Palestinian human rights and Israeli apartheid violations of human rights."

Suicide bomber in ambulance kills at least 95, wounds 158, Kabul officials say



A suicide bomber detonated an ambulance packed with explosives outside a hospital in central Kabul Saturday morning, officials said, killing at least 95 people and wounding 158. It was the third major attack in Afghanistan in the past week and one of the deadliest in the shell-shocked capital.

Taliban insurgents claimed responsibility for the midday attack, which left bodies strewn across several blocks in a crowded section of the city that includes an Interior Ministry compound, a historic antique and carpet market, and the government-run Jamhuriyat Hospital.

The audacious bombing came just six days after Taliban fighters stormed a luxury hilltop hotel in Kabul and held it for more than 14 hours, killing 22 people. including four Americans and 10 other foreigners. The extremist group said the attack was aimed at killing “foreign occupiers” and their Afghan collaborators.

On Wednesday, an assault on the office of a British charity, Save the Children, in the eastern city of Jalalabad, killed four people. That attack was claimed by the Islamic State.
For hours after the blast, plumes of smoke rose from buildings, glass was shattered for blocks around, cars sat in charred heaps and ambulance sirens wailed. One hospital received so many victims that news reports said some had to be treated in the facility’s yard despite the winter cold.


A suicide bomber packed an ambulance with explosives and detonated his load in a busy area of Afghanistan’s capital, killing at least 95 and wounding at least 158 people.

“I have not seen such a horrible scene in my entire life,” said Mohammad Fahim, 20, an employee of the Kabul police department who was inside the mosque of the Interior Ministry compound when the bomb exploded yards away. He said the mosque’s windows shattered, wounding him slightly, and he came out to help evacuate more seriously hurt people to hospitals.

Hours after the bombing, municipal trucks carried loads of debris and broken glass from the site, and people crowded outside the gates of the Emergency Hospital, some seeking information about their loved ones and others offering to donate blood.

“For God’s sake, read the list,” one man pleaded with hospital employees who had brought out a list of people admitted with injuries. Mohammed Hussain Akbari, 22, waited two hours for news of his uncle, who had recently applied to join the police force. “He is not among the wounded. I hope he is not among the martyrs,” Akbari said.
A Taliban spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahid, said in an emailed statement that the attack was aimed at a police check post near the ministry, but officials said most of those killed and injured were civilians. The blast also occurred close to an office of the Afghan High Peace Council, which was established to promote peace talks with the Taliban.

 The devastation recalled the horrific truck bombing in Kabul last May, which left 150 people dead and more than 400 injured in a highly guarded official and diplomatic area. That attack, which set off days of angry protests against the government, was claimed by the Haqqani network, a Taliban faction.

In addition to launching a rapid series of urban attacks in recent days, the Taliban have also made aggressive new forays into remote rural regions, especially Faryab province in the north, where there have been heavy clashes between the insurgents and Afghan security forces.

The multipronged blitz comes as the U.S. military is expanding its presence in the country by several thousand troops and taking on new roles. These include training Afghan special operations forces and air force pilots and becoming more actively involved in combat support in an effort to turn the tide of a 16-year conflict that shows no signs of letting up.
 The persistent Taliban threat, augmented by periodic attacks by the Islamic State — known here by the acronym Daesh — has created growing public frustration and disillusionment with the government of President Ashraf Ghani. It has been consumed by political battles and faulted for failing to keep even the capital secure.

“Our leaders fight each other over government positions. Taliban and Daesh are taking advantage of the situation,” said a man seeking news of his missing uncle at the Emergency Hospital.

 Ahmad Saeedi, a former diplomat, told a TV news interviewer that “if the current government had a conscience, all these attacks wouldn’t have happened. The authorities are busy with personal confrontations and deals.” Officials “wear posh suits” and visit hospitals to show off, he said, but “they don’t care about what is going on in this country.”

Constable reported from Islamabad, Pakistan.

Trump Launched Campaign to Discredit Potential FBI Witnesses

The president targeted three bureau officials who could provide key testimony in the Mueller probe.

U.S. President Donald Trump shakes hands with then-FBI Director James Comey at the White House on Jan. 22, 2017. (Andrew Harrer-Pool/Getty Images) 

No automatic alt text available.
BY 
 | 
President Donald Trump pressed senior aides last June to devise and carry out a campaign to discredit senior FBI officials after learning that those specific employees were likely to be witnesses against him as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, according to two people directly familiar with the matter.

In testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 8, recently fired FBI Director James Comey disclosed that he spoke contemporaneously with other senior bureau officials about potentially improper efforts by the president to curtail the FBI’s investigation of alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Mueller is investigating whether Trump’s efforts constituted obstruction of justice.

Not long after Comey’s Senate testimony, Trump hired John Dowd, a veteran criminal defense attorney, to represent him in matters related to Mueller’s investigation. Dowd warned Trump that the potential corroborative testimony of the senior FBI officials in Comey’s account would likely play a central role in the special counsel’s final conclusion, according to people familiar with the matter.

In discussions with at least two senior White House officials, Trump repeated what Dowd had told him to emphasize why he and his supporters had to “fight back harder,” in the words of one of these officials.

In a brief conversation Friday afternoon, Dowd denied the accounts of administration officials contained in this story as “flat-out wrong,” but he also refused to discuss what details were incorrect. “My advice to the president is confidential,” he told Foreign Policy.

“You don’t know me,” Dowd added. “You don’t how I lawyer, and you don’t know what I communicated to the president and what I did not.”

While Dowd’s private advice to the president would ordinarily be protected by attorney-client privilege, Mueller might be able to probe comments that Trump made to others about that legal advice by asking him directly about it as well as anyone else he shared that advice with.

A person with direct knowledge of the matter said although Dowd explained the risks of senior FBI officials joining Comey in testifying against Trump, that information was part of a broader presentation to the president about Mueller’s investigation. It is not improper, but in fact is a duty, for an attorney to explain to a client how they are at risk, the source said. What may have been improper, however, were actions Trump took upon learning that information.

Since Dowd gave him that information, Trump — as well as his aides, surrogates, and some Republican members of Congress — has engaged in an unprecedented campaign to discredit specific senior bureau officials and the FBI as an institution.

The FBI officials Trump has targeted are Andrew McCabe, the current deputy FBI director and who was briefly acting FBI director after Comey’s firing; Jim Rybicki, Comey’s chief of staff and senior counselor; and James Baker, formerly the FBI’s general counsel. Those same three officials were first identified as possible corroborating witnesses for Comey in a June 7 article in Vox. Comey confirmed in congressional testimony the following day that he confided in the three men.

In the past, presidents have attacked special counsels and prosecutors who have investigated them, calling them partisan and unfair. But no previous president has attacked a long-standing American institution such as the FBI — or specific FBI agents and law enforcement officials.

Mueller has asked senior members of the administration questions in recent months indicating that prosecutors might consider Trump’s actions also to be an effort to intimidate government officials — in this case FBI officials — from testifying against him.

The New York Times reported late Thursday that Trump also ordered the firing of Mueller last June. Trump reportedly changed his mind after White House counsel Donald McGahn threatened to resign and two of the president’s highest-ranking aides told him that it would have devastating effects on his presidency.

Press reports at the time said there were indications that Mueller was already investigating Trump for obstruction of justice, even though he was only recently appointed.

Obstruction of justice cases depend largely on whether a prosecutor can demonstrate the intent or motivation of the person he or she charges. It’s not enough to prove that the person under investigation attempted to impede an ongoing criminal investigation — a prosecutor must demonstrate some corrupt purpose in doing so.

That Trump may have been motivated to attack specific FBI officials because they were potential witnesses against him could demonstrate potential intent that would bolster an obstruction of justice case.

The White House declined comment for this story, but a White House spokesman, Raj Shah, responded to recent reports that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had pressured FBI Director Christopher Wray to remove McCabe as deputy director. Having the attorney general pressure the FBI director to remove his deputy would be an unprecedented act in modern U.S. political history.

“The president has enormous respect for the thousands of rank-and-file FBI agents who make up the world’s most professional and talented law enforcement agency,” Shah said. “He believes politically motivated senior leaders, including former Director Comey and others he empowered, have tainted the agency’s reputation for unbiased pursuit of justice.’’

In June, Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee that Trump had pressured him during a private Oval Office meeting in February to shut down a criminal investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Comey refused to do so, and Trump fired him on May 9.
Comey confirmed during his testimony that he discussed these events on a regular basis with the “senior leadership team” of the FBI — which he identified as his deputy director, chief of staff, and the general counsel — and then named two other senior FBI officials who attended meetings about Trump’s attempts to influence the FBI’s Russia investigation on a number of occasions.

Since Comey’s testimony, Trump and his political supporters have personally targeted all three FBI officials.

Rybicki has been the frequent target of Republican attacks in recent months. This week, Wray announced that Rybicki, who had continued as chief of staff under the new director, was resigning.

Trump also mentioned Baker, who was recently replaced as the FBI’s top lawyer, following allegations that he had served as a source for a reporter. “Wow, ‘FBI lawyer James Baker reassigned,’ according to @FoxNews,” Trump tweeted on Dec. 23.

McCabe, at the time Comey identified him as a corroborating witness, was acting director of the FBI. McCabe became interim director when Comey was fired and then went back to being deputy director after Wray was named as the new FBI director.

As acting FBI director — and later returning as deputy director — McCabe could potentially be, next to Comey, the most damaging FBI witness against Trump in Mueller’s investigation.
Trump has singled out McCabe for his most aggressive attacks.

On July 26, Trump tweeted that Sessions should fire McCabe: “Why didn’t A.G. Sessions replace Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, a Comey friend who was in charge of Clinton investigation but got … big dollars ($700,000) for his wife’s political run from Hillary Clinton and her representatives. Drain the Swamp!”

Trump was making reference to the fact that McCabe’s wife — Jill McCabe — had run for the Virginia State Senate and received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the Virginia Democratic Party, as well as from a political action committee associated with then-Gov.

Terry McAuliffe, a close political ally of the Clintons.

Jill McCabe received no money directly from Hillary Clinton.

Andrew McCabe helped oversee the FBI’s investigation of Clinton’s use of a private email server. FBI ethics officials cleared McCabe’s involvement in the case, which occurred long after his wife’s political campaign was over.

After it was reported that McCabe planned to retire later this year, Trump tweeted: “FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is racing the clock to retire with full benefits. 90 days to go?!!!”

(1) WHAT IS PEACE JOURNALISM?

peace journalism logo
A) by Jake Lynch

20 January 2018

Peace journalism is when editors and reporters make choices – about what to report, and how to report it – that create opportunities for society at large to consider and to value non-violent responses to conflict.

If readers and audiences are furnished with such opportunities, but still decide they prefer war to peace, there is nothing more journalism can do about it, while remaining journalism. On the other hand, there is no matching commitment to ensuring a fair hearing for violent responses, if only because they seldom struggle for a place on the news agenda.

How come? To report is to choose. ‘We just report the facts’, journalists say, but ‘the facts’ is a category of practically infinite size. Even in these days of media profusion, that category has to be shrunk to fit into the news. The journalist is a ‘gatekeeper’, allowing some aspects of reality through, to emerge, blinking, into the public eye; and keeping the rest in the dark.
Neither is this a random process. The bits left out are always, or usually, the same bits, or the same sorts of bits. News generally prefers official sources to anyone from the ‘grassroots’; event to process; and a two-sided battle for supremacy as the basic conflict model.

These preferences, or biases, hardened into industry conventions as journalism began to be sold as a mass-produced commodity in consumer societies, and faced pressure to present itself as all-things-to-all-people, capable of being marketed to potential readers, listeners and viewers of all political views and none.

Quoting officials – a category topped by the political leader of one’s own country – is a choice and a preference, but one with a built-in alibi. It was not our ‘fault’ that this person became head of government: s/he just ‘is’. ‘Indexing’, or the familiar journalistic habit of restricting the extent of debate to differences between government and official opposition – ‘elite discord’ – has the same effect, of camouflaging choices as facts.

What about event and process? News that dwells on, say, the details of death and destruction wrought by a bomb, avoids controversy. The device has, indisputably, gone off. There are well-attested casualty figures, from trustworthy sources such as hospitals and the police. What is automatically more controversial is to probe why the bombers did it, what was the process leading up to it, what were their grievances and motivations.

As to dualism, well, when I was a reporter at the BBC, we all realised that a successful career could be based on the following formula: ‘on the one hand… on the other hand… in the end, only time will tell’. To have ‘balance’, to ‘hear both sides’, is a reliable way to insulate oneself against complaints of one-sidedness, or bias.

War Journalism and Its Antidote

There are deep-seated reasons, then, why these are the dominant conventions in journalism, but, taken together, they mean that its framing of public debates over conflict issues is generally on the side of violent responses. It merits the description, ‘war journalism’.
How come? Take the dualism first. If you start to think about a conflict as a tug-of-war between two great adversaries, then any change in their relationship – any movement – can only take place along a single axis. Just as, in tug-of-war, one side gaining a metre means the other side losing a metre, so any new development, in a conflict thus conceived, immediately begs to be assessed in a zero-sum game. Anything that is not, unequivocally, winning, risks being reported as losing. It brings a readymade incentive to step up efforts for victory, or escalate. People involved in conflict ‘talk tough’ – and often ‘act tough’ – as they play to a gallery the media have created.

Remove acts of political violence from context and you leave only further violence as a possible response. This is why there is so little news about peace initiatives – if no underlying causes are visible, there is nothing to ‘fix’. Only in this form of reporting does it make any sense to view ‘terrorism’, for example, as something on which it is possible or sensible to wage ‘war’.

And if you wait, to report on either underlying causes or peace initiatives, until it suits political leaders to discuss or engage with them, you might wait a long time. Stirrings of peace almost invariably begin at lower levels. There is, furthermore, a lever in the hands of governments that no one else has – the ‘legitimate’ use of military force. For all these reasons, the primacy of official sources, coupled with the enduring national orientation of most media, is bound to skew the representation of conflicts in favour of a pronounced receptiveness to the advocacy of violence.

Hence, peace journalism, as a remedial strategy and an attempt to supplement the news conventions to give peace a chance.
Peace Journalism:

  • Explores the backgrounds and contexts of conflict formation, presenting causes and options on every side (not just ‘both sides’);
  • Gives voice to the views of all rival parties, from all levels;
  • Offers creative ideas for conflict resolution, development, peacemaking and peacekeeping;
  • Exposes lies, cover-up attempts and culprits on all sides, and reveals excesses committed by, and suffering inflicted on, peoples of all parties;
  • Pays attention to peace stories and post-war developments.

Reality and Representation

Peace journalism is more realistic, in the sense of fidelity to a reality that already exists, independently of our knowledge or representation of it. To report violence without background or context is to misrepresent it, since any conflict is, at root, a relationship, of parties setting and pursuing incompatible goals. To omit any discussion of them is a distortion.

At the same time, it acknowledges that there is no one correct version of this reality that everyone will agree upon. We understand the world around us by taking messages and images – including those served up by the news – and slotting them into codes we develop through our lives and carry in our heads. Meaning is not created solely at the point of production, or encoding; no act of representation is complete until it has been received, or decoded. Decoding is something we often do automatically, since so much of what we read, hear and see is familiar. This is what propaganda relies on – establish Saddam Hussein as a ‘bad man’, or ‘weapons of mass destruction’ as a ‘threat’, and it forms a prism, through which all the reality, both subsequent and previous, tends to be viewed.

Journalism is often easy prey for such efforts because it does not generally encourage us to reflect on the choices it is making, for reasons discussed above. The famous US ‘anchor-man’, Walter Cronkite, signed off CBS Evening News every night with the catchphrase, “that’s the way it is”. How it came to be that way would be an interesting conversation, but it is not one in which news is generally keen to engage.

Communications students will recognise the last few paragraphs as a potted version of reception theory. In writing this introduction, I’ve resisted academic sources, because, yes folks, the clichés are true, media scholars often do dress in black (which we won’t hold against them) and chew polysyllables for breakfast (which we might). However it’s worth quoting one famous aphorism coined by a clever and original researcher, Gaye Tuchman: “the acceptance of representational conventions as facticity makes reality vulnerable to manipulation”.

So peace journalism is in favour of truth, as any must be. Of course reporters should report, as truthfully as they can, the facts they encounter; only ask, as well, how they have come to meet these particular facts, and how the facts have come to meet them. If it’s always the same facts, or the same sorts of facts, adopt a policy of seeking out important stories, and important bits of stories, which would otherwise slip out of the news, and devise ways to put them back in. And try to let the rest of us in on the process. Peace journalism is that which abounds in cues and clues to prompt and equip us to ‘negotiate’ our own readings, to open up multiple meanings, to inspect propaganda and other self-serving representations on the outside.

Can journalists actually do this, and do they? Latterly, researchers have set out to gauge the amount of peace journalism that is going on. There is probably no one piece of reporting that exhibits all five of the characteristics listed above, whilst also avoiding demonizing language, labeling and so forth. But distinctions do exist, and they have been measured. Reporting in The Philippines, especially by the country’s main newspaper, the Philippine Daily Inquirer, is interesting in providing an effective counter to attempts by the country’s government to import the ‘war on terrorism’ ideology and apply it to a long-running insurgency. The paper I used to work for, the Independent of London, does a lot of peace journalism.

Then of course there are proliferating independent media, now building, through web-based platforms, on traditions long nurtured by alternative newspapers and community radio stations. There is some peace journalism, so there could be more.