The lessons of the Stephen Farrell rescue
What are our obligations to kidnapped war journalists?
There has been much criticism in the past several days over last week’s military operation in Afghanistan that rescued British journalist Stephen Farrell but left four others dead. The issue raises interesting questions about what actions the military should take to aid a captured journalist. Journalists inevitably put themselves in dangerous situations when covering a war, and how much responsibility for their safety should governments and the military accept?
There’s a useful distinction to be made between embedded journalists and those that do not travel with military units. When a journalist is attached to a specific military unit it suggests that the military accepts a greater responsibility for his or her safety. In most cases, it would be wrong to assign blame to a military unit if an embedded journalist is killed or captured; but, at the same time, if the military puts an embedded journalist in a dangerous situation they may have a duty to look after the journalist’s safety, and aid him or her in the unlikely event her or she is captured.
But many war journalists, like Mr. Farrell, do not travel with the military. These writers can put themselves into situations that the military has no control over. In this case, any obligation to help Mr. Farrell (or his ilk) would be based on a duty to aid civilians; or, perhaps, a duty of the British government to help its citizens.
In these situations, any sort of overly dogmatic solution is misguided as the nuances of each situation defy absolute rules. For instance, it would be wrong to say that the British have no duty to help a citizen, but clearly it would also be wrong to say that they must ensure his or her safety no matter the cost. A more prudent approach involves assessing the risks and of each option and choosing the course of action with the best expected consequences. In each case, the threat to the prisoner must be weighed against the potential danger of a rescue mission.
It’s also worth considering the factors that would determine how the government and military should act in each situation.
For example, some military officials point to the fact that Mr. Farrell ignored advice not to enter the area in which he was captured. They argue his reckless behavior means that British military had less of a duty to rescue him.
While it is true we don’t reimburse a man for gambling away his paycheck or investing his money in get-rich-quick schemes, there is a difference when it is a situation of life or death.
When deciding whether to jump into the ocean to save a drowning boy, it seems reasonable to consider how much danger you will be putting yourself in, but it would be ludicrous to not help the child simply because he had foolishly ignored a “Do Not Swim” sign posted on the beach.
Considerations such as how much imminent danger the journalist is in, the potential effectiveness of negotiations, and the risks of using force should be key factors when deciding whether to launch a rescue mission, whether Mr. Farrell could have been smarter in his decision making is of much less importance.
-Luke
Related posts:
ShareComments
2 Responses to “The lessons of the Stephen Farrell rescue”
Leave a Reply
all good things
site best