What happened at Manbij?
While major Western media outlets didn't make much of the news, it is obvious that the French and US airstrikes that targeted the village of Toukhan Al-Kubra near the Turkish-Syrian border and the city of Manbij had gone horribly wrong! The Assad government has claimed that more than 140 civilians were killed by allied bombing. Indeed the Syrian government is terming it as "bloody massacre" and the foreign ministry statement published states: "The government of the Syrian Arab Republic condemns, with the strongest terms, the two bloody massacres perpetrated by the French and US warplanes and those affiliated to the so-called international coalition which send their missiles and bombs to the civilians instead of directing them to the terrorist gangs…Syria also affirms that those who want to combat terrorism seriously should coordinate with the Syrian government and army."
Syria is now demanding that the UN take action against the United States and France for the civilian casualties. This incident has also been condemned by Amnesty International which stated that it has found credible evidence of Syrian government's claims. A spokesperson for human rights body stated "even if the coalition forces believed that fighters from the armed group calling itself Islamic State were present around al-Tukhar, they should have taken the necessary precaution to identify who else was present to avoid or at least minimise civilian casualties." So, now we have more than a hundred dead civilians including children, women and elderly on our hands and the world press has not really given this piece of news much importance.
Now why is that? Casualties are casualties. Are we then to accept that when the Syrian forces' operations that result in civilian death, it is news and when unnecessary deaths are caused by the coalition forces, these are "collateral damage"? Although The Guardian and The Telegraph newspapers have carried the news, one cannot but be somewhat puzzled about why this news item has not been given the importance it deserves by the wider media outlets. The outpouring of condemnation and outrage is not really present here. As pointed out by Magdalena Mughrabi, Amnesty International's interim Middle East Director, "anyone responsible for violations of international humanitarian law must be brought to justice and victims and their families should receive full reparations." How can reparations be made when the whole incident is being downplayed and the US Central Command (CENTCOM) is found making statements that US-led forces have struck IS tactical units and fighting positions near Manbij?
This is precisely the sort of incident forces allied against the IS do not need. While there may be a tacit agreement among media outlets to downplay such incidents, the news will get out invariably, and most notably, through social media. What is of import is the fact that when established media start deciding which news to highlight and which not to, we are headed for a dark hole. News is news and we should not be playing God when it comes to reporting the facts. By downplaying the incident, the US has inadvertently strengthened Assad's hand and his claims that the US is not really interested in destroying the IS but is actively engaged in supporting factions with dubious records, such as the Al-Nusra Front and Jaish Al-Alam, which purportedly have links with IS. This is not the first time such "collateral" damage has happened. Back in January, US-led airstrikes resulted in 50 civilian deaths. With all that high tech equipment including drones in the air and satellites in orbit, reconnaissance planes sending back live footage, how is it that the US military are not aware of IS presence in the field and cannot distinguish between civilians and combatants?
Needless to say that there will probably not be an outside inquiry to ascertain what really happened in Manbij. It is, after all, a combat zone and the battle lines are shifting constantly. What we do know is that the senseless slaughter of innocents and the failure of major media houses to report on both sides of the conflict is quietly fuelling more hatred amongst millions of non-combatant Muslims around the world. If winning the hearts-and-minds of the larger populace is a priority area for US-led forces in Syria, then the Manbij incident will stick out like a sore thumb for a long, long time. Selective news coverage is unhelpful in the information age where a large portion of the world populace is connected and news in one form or another reach them. This is a dangerous game of hide-and-seek that is being played by free press. Selective journalism is playing into the hands of radical forces that can and do argue that the West is there to occupy the lands of Arabs for the purposes of controlling resources. Senseless bombing and a failure to take responsibility, or even report on the issue fuels more hatred and aids in recruitment by extremist outfits like the IS. Surely, the time has arrived when we start practicing our trade with the honesty it deserves. Media, both print and broadcast exists to serve public interest with news, as it happens, when it happens; and not be used as an extension of foreign policy.
The writer is Assistant Editor, The Daily Star.
Comments