Beslan and censorship at Fairfax

I don’t want to comment on the biggest terror acts of 2004. Russia, unfortunately, occupies the top spot on that list. There has already been a lot said and written about Beslan. This article is about something else. It is about how the terror act in Beslan was reported in other countries.

Soon after the tragic events in Beslan, American expert on the Middle East Daniel Pipes (son of the well-known Kremlinologist Richard Pipes) wrote an article entitled "They Are Terrorists, Not Activists." As Pipes indicated, we too were able to find many examples of cynical political correctness in the foreign press.

According to Pipes, Reuters staffer Nidal al-Mughrabi once told his colleagues in Gaza, "Never use the words terrorist' or terrorism' to describe Palestinian rebels or activists. People consider them heroes."

It seems many considered the kidnappers of children in Beslan heroes too, or decided not to offend them with the word terrorist.

"Militants hold children hostage at Russian school," in the words of the American National Public Radio on September 1.

Another American radio station, Voice of America, described the situation in Beslan on the next day as "Two explosions were heard at the school, apparently after militants fired grenade launchers."

"Some children said the guerillas terrorized them, but did not hurt them physically," Associated Press reporter Michael Eckel wrote on September 4.

The Australian newspaper Sydney Morning Herald used the AP material for news on September 4 that read, "A statement posted on an internet forum in the name of an Islamic militant group indicated Chechen rebels were responsible for taking over a school in the southern Russian town of Beslan, but blamed the Russian government for the bloody outcome of the siege."

Jonathan Marcus, diplomatic correspondent for the BBC said that "The string of attacks inspired by Chechen radicals in the past few weeks has brought a general sense of insecurity to many ordinary Russians - akin to that felt by many Americans after the 11 September 2001 attacks in New York and Washington." Obviously, he also thinks Osama Ben Laden is a radical and not a terrorist.

"The attackers set free some small groups of hostages in the first two days but said they would kill 50 children for every one of their number who died," The Economist reported in an article entitled Another Siege Ends in Bloodshed. The article was unsigned. Maybe the author was ashamed.

C. J. Chivers and Steven Lee Myers use similar terminology in The New York Times, where they wrote, "Heavily armed insurgents, some with explosives strapped to their bodies, seized a school here in southern Russia on Wednesday, herded scores of schoolchildren, parents and teachers into its gymnasium and threatened to kill them."

"The hostage-taking was the fourth attack blamed on Chechen activists to rock Russia since last week," the English-language Pakistan Times wrote in its international section in an article entitled "Assault on Captors: Ends with 210 Killed in Russia."

Sometimes the prohibition on the word terrorist was clearly not a mindless fashion, but a conscious choice.

Tony Sisule wrote in the Daily Nation of Kenya two weeks after the tragedy in Beslan, "There is a clear difference the open terror of Al-Qaeda and the violent political acts of the Chechen freedom fighters."

Almost simultaneously, Johann Hari wrote in The Independent, "A fortnight ago, Chechen jihadists murdered more than 300 children in Beslan. They are terrorists.' Since 1991, Russian troops have murdered more than 40,000 Chechen. They are not terrorists'; they are our allies.' The term terrorism' simply means violence we don't support.'" And the neologism "jihadist" clearly means violence we do support.

We can, of course, consider such passages evidence of complete freedom of speech. There is also the opinion that journalists should report facts and not give evaluations, and so the word "terrorist" should be excluded from their vocabulary.

But substituting the word "terrorist" with "activist," "jihadist" or "insurgent" seems different to me than "African American" for "Negro" or "gay" for "homosexual." I understand the struggle of ethnic and sexual minorities for their rights, but defending the rights of terrorists seems idiotic to me. They're doing a pretty good job of that without our help.

The Kommersant (New Russia's first Independent Newspaper)