Attacking Aljazeera

Was the alleged memo between Blair and Bush – in which Bush contemplated 'taking out' Aljazeera – a joke, a hoax or a genuine threat? Conor Brady on the implications of attacks on the media

Some will say that, so far, all we have had is an allegation by the Daily Mirror. But the evidence supporting the charge that President George Bush contemplated the "taking out" of the Aljazeera TV station in Qatar goes beyond that. Let us for a moment try to imagine how it would stack up in a criminal trial.

A reported conversation between the US President and Prime Minister Tony Blair has been in circulation among official and media circles in the UK for some weeks now. The text is consistent, suggesting that it is from a common source. At least two different spins come from within the US administration. One says that the President was being "jocose." The other says that the President never said anything about attacking the TV station – and that the reported conversation is a hoax.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Blair's Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, rolls out the legal artillery, threatening to prosecute editors or anyone else who publishes material that has been secured illegally. Two civil servants have been charged already. Lord Goldsmith is hardly likely to start locking up civil servants or editors over a hoax.

And the accused has form – a record of aggressive action against the party who is the supposed/intended victim in this case. In 2001, US forces destroyed the Aljazeera bureau in Kabul, during the invasion of Afghanistan. In 2003, they attacked the Baghdad bureau, killing a journalist, Tariq Ayub, who was working in the building at the time.

All of the elements necessary to put a charge seem to be present – motive, opportunity, means and a previous history of aggression against the subject. Waddah Khanfar, the TV station's director, has called on the US to deny the report and put an immediate halt to verbal attacks by US administration officials against Aljazeera and its personnel. He also rejects US claims that the Kabul and Baghdad attacks were "mistakes".

"The continual attacks, the continual criticism that the American authorities have directed at our work, has created a climate of fear in which it is difficult to work," he said last week.

Diplomats and lawyers will recoil at the implications of launching aggressive action against a TV station operating from a small country that has enjoyed cordial relations with the west in general and with the US in particular. Qatar has an indigenous population of no more than 300,000 people. It is an immensely wealthy state, whose ruling Emir has sought to modernise and westernise and who has sought to imbue Aljazeera with what might be termed western media values.

But journalists and media personnel will positively shudder at the possible fall-out of a deliberate assault on a news organisation's personnel and offices. At the worst of times heretofore, in the various regional conflicts around the world, media workers have had at least some protection by virtue of their calling. Yes, there have been deaths and serious injuries. But even in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, combatants have generally given freedom of passage to journalists and their support staff. Again, there have been deaths. And there have been instances of personnel being beaten. In at least one case, a cameraman was deliberately targeted by a tank-crew. But at government level, there has been an acceptance that the press are not legitimate targets.

The implications for working journalists of a deliberate assault on a media organisation would be fearful. Can anyone doubt if Aljazeera were reduced to a smoking ruin, with casualties being dragged from the rubble, that other media organisations would not then suffer retaliatory violence? It would be inevitable that Fox News, CNN, BBC and other high-visibility organisations would be considered legitimate targets. Without doubt, a great many more media personnel at work on the ground would be lost.

As things stand, it has been a bad year for journalists in conflict zones. There have been ten deaths in Iraq in the past six months, bringing the total there to 21 for the year. The World Association of Newspapers (WAN) has termed 2005 as a "dark year" for the press with 51 journalists having lost their lives in the line of duty so far. The majority of these deaths have been in Asia.

Aljazeera staff will acknowledge that there are persons within their ranks who are virulently anti-American, and that there are some who are sympathetic to and supportive of militant Islamic movements. This is a mirror-image, they will say, of many western news organisations which include journalists with widely-ranging political and ideological positions.

But they vigorously reject any allegations that the station is the cats-paw of either Islamic terror groups or of the various Arab governments. At one time or another over the past three years, they point out, the station has been denounced by every Arab government in the region. The Emir has been steadfast in defending the station's independence and has a faultless track record himself in allowing its editors to get on with the jobs they are paid to do.

Western powers may feel threatened by the role played by Aljazeera at present. But they are going to have to become accustomed to it – and more. The station's English-language service is due to start transmissions in March. Experienced English-speaking journalists have been recruited from the UK and elsewhere (many of them are personnel who have been "destructured" from the shrinking BBC). Producers and directors have been hired from some of the most prestigious TV programmes. When the new channel comes on air, a potent and influential new voice will be heard, addressing work issues from an Arab perspective.

Conor Brady is Editor Emeritus of The Irish Times. He is a senior teaching fellow at the Michael Smurfit Graduate School of Business, UCD. His book, Up With The Times, has recently been published by Gill and Macmillan