Murder in Iraq to silence the truth
• Javier Couso, brother of the Tele5 cameraman killed in 2003 in Iraq by U.S. troops, gives an e-mail assessment of the war correspondents’ event in Havana

BY HEDELBERTO LOPEZ BLANCH —Juventud Rebelde staff writer—

CENSORSHIP through gunfire was the way that the U.S. invaders silenced and murdered international reporters who were offering the world their images of what was taking place in Iraq. As has occurred in many parts of the world where the United States has invaded, so-called “press freedom” could not be allowed and in order to silence it, an Abrams M-1 tank pointed its gun towards the Palestine Hotel in the center of Baghdad and fired its lethal round. Three international reporters died immediately from the shrapnel: José Couso from Spain’s Tele5 channel; Tarek Ayud, a correspondent for the Qatari television network Al-Jazeera; and Tara Protsyuh from Reuters.

From October 17 through 20, the 4th World Conference of War Correspondents is taking place in Havana with the aim of sharing reflections on the start of a millennium marked by armed conflicts.

Since 1998, the Cuban capital has been the setting to bring together journalists, photographers, camera operators, writers, filmmakers, academics, researchers, historians, educators, relatives of those who have died in the course of their duty of reporting the truth, and all those who are interested in the role of the media in the drama of wars throughout the world. The central message of the event has always been: Those who risk their lives to report are working for peace.

Javier Couso, brother of cameraman José Couso offers – via e-mail – his impressions of the event.

What relevance does this conference have for you?

For my family and I it is a very important event. Firstly, it offers us the opportunity to share with the journalists and camera operators present our version of what happened on April 8, 2003 in Baghdad, which in our opinion was clearly a war crime committed by the U.S. Army with the evident intention of closing the eyes of the international community, given that it had already attacked three existing press centers in Baghdad at that time.

“The version of events that we support is the result of a painful but carefully considered analysis that has allowed us to wipe away our tears through the struggle of recognition of and dignity for my brother. Attending an event involving people who are working or used to work in the same profession as him is a way of being with him and sharing our anxiety and pain with those who risk their lives in order to inform their fellow citizens of the dramatic reality of war.

How do you evaluate the war unleashed by the United States on Iraq?

As aggression against a sovereign country behind the back of the international community, against the wishes of the vast majority of the world population and based on evidence that was nothing more than barefaced lies.

It’s clear that with the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the United States is not attempting to install democracy and improve the quality of life of the Iraqi people, but to satisfy its own geopolitical interests by transferring its strategic axis in Saudi Arabia to Iraq and Jordan.

The whole project is a neocolonial approach that is affecting the whole region and attempting a new equilibrium that clearly benefits Anglo-Israeli interests.

What is your opinion of the so-called “preemptive” wars announced by the United States?

I flatly and categorically reject them for what they will turn out to be, nothing more or less than wars of aggression. The preemptive criterion was not applicable to what has conformed international rules and regulations to date, or what we commonly call “international law,” and which view war as the last resort and only legal when exercised in self-defense.

“Changing this, which is common sense, for the possibility of launching attacks in order to defend yourself from unknown dangers, signifies opening the door to a scenario in which the powerful nations can invent pretexts and alleged evidence in defense of their national security, in order to implant what we could describe as “gunboat policies” which would be used (as we are already seeing and experiencing) not to defend oneself, but as a new pawn that would have the moves of a queen on the global chessboard.”