(IPI/IFEX) – The following is Part 1 of an IPI press release for the 1998 World Press Freedom Review. Press Release The smothering of information, opinions and ideas Every year, the publication of the International Press Institute’s World Press Freedom Review is a grim reminder of all the obstacles to free expression that are still […]
(IPI/IFEX) – The following is Part 1 of an IPI press release for the 1998 World Press
Freedom Review.
Press Release
The smothering of information, opinions and ideas
Every year, the publication of the International Press Institute’s World
Press Freedom Review is a grim reminder of all the obstacles to free
expression that are still allowed to exist. Through murder, beatings,
harassment, threats, legal devices, administration and bureaucracy, among
other methods, the free flow of information and ideas is all too frequently
impeded.
The 1998 World Press Freedom Review presents an overview of press freedom
violations and major media developments in 168 countries. The report
illustrates the fact that two-thirds of the world’s population are still
living in countries where the fundamental principles of freedom of
expression are not embraced.
Tragically, at least 50 journalists were murdered in 1998. IPI believes that
at least 31 of these killings were as a direct result of the journalists’
professional activity, with the additional 19 cases currently under
investigation. Hundreds of journalists were arrested or detained during the
year, with just over 100 behind bars at the time of going to press.
This report documents the manifold methods that those with something to hide
use to smother the free flow of information, opinions and ideas.
The IPI World Press Freedom Review is available on our website
http://www.freemedia.at or hard copies can be ordered from IPI headquarters.
Johann P. Fritz
Director
Vienna, 8/2/99
AFRICA
After centuries of crippling slavery, militarisation and colonialisation,
Africa is still only at the beginning of a continent-wide revolution. In
most African countries, political liberation from colonialism is only one
human generation old. In hindsight, it is no wonder that so many military
governments emerged amongst the newly independent countries. Enormous
problems were being caused by, among other things, the population explosion,
the availability of firearms, overspecialised colonialist raw material
economies, different ethnicities forced into nationhood by arbitrary
colonial borders and exaggerated demands for progress. These problems had
actually prompted the European colonialists to hand over political power in
the first place. There are far more guns or landmines than telephones,
radios and television sets in Africa today, and that could be seen to
epitomise the continent’s prime future political challenge. With more than a
quarter of its countries at war today, Africa is also struggling to cope
with a third of the world’s refugees and displaced people – a total 7.2
million people. It would be a mistake to believe that there is anything
inevitable about the widespread practice of violence and military rule in
Africa. Like every other continent, Africa has its own indigenous democratic
and undemocratic traditions, which all play a role in current politics. And
with the end of the Cold War, democratic reform started spreading like
wildfire across the
continent. Only the 1993 military clampdown in Nigeria dampened the impact.
The dramatic events in Nigeria during 1998, however, have now set that
process in motion again. A sixth of all Africans are Nigerians, and whatever
happens there seems to have profound effects across the continent. Still,
the structural background of poverty, war and disease should not be
forgotten when one looks at the deplorable, sometimes atrocious, conditions
facing the media in Africa today. To some extent, Europe and North America
have relative press freedom because they can afford it. There, leaders do
not have to face the pressure of desperately poor masses who become the easy
prey of populist leaders with secessionist and other radical cures and
promises. As Andreas Gross from the Zürich Institute for Direct Democracy
said at the 1998 ICAP symposium: “In Switzerland, everybody wants to be in
the opposition, in Africa – nobody.” It is indeed much easier to complain
than it is to govern, provided you can get away with complaining. The
African media, moreover, are themselves heavily politicised by the endemic
cash shortage. Journalists often take bribes from the powerful elite, either
to hush up embarrassing news or to exaggerate potentially good news. Thus,
editorial independence is severely compromised, not only in the state media,
but also in the currently expanding private media sector. Instead of being
challenged, though, these difficult conditions have often become excuses for
the many corrupt and oppressive governments in Africa.
Callous thieves like the former dictators Mobutu and Abacha brought billions
of dollars to their personal bank accounts abroad, and thus undermined
crucial potentials for growth and prosperity – and press freedom – in their
own countries. The small-time despots, similarly, attempt to justify the
silencing of critical media with pretexts like “integrity of the state”,
“national security” or “reputation and prestige of the country and its
army”, examples of which abound in the IPI 1998 World Press Freedom Review’s
Africa section.
The culture of violence in which African journalists are forced to work
manifested itself in nine murders and countless assassination attempts,
death threats and other kinds of physical violence, persecution and
intimidation during 1998. Journalists were killed in Nigeria, Ethiopia,
Sierra Leone, Burkina Faso, Angola, the Republic of Congo and Rwanda.
Another acute problem is arbitrary and often illegal arrest and detention,
especially in Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and in Nigeria
before Abacha’s death in June. These practices are mostly carried out with
shocking impunity. Furthermore, there is a conspicuous and typical lack of
neutrality and objectivity in the many state-owned broadcasters in the
region. The Democratic Republic of the Congo, Angola and Swaziland are only
extreme examples of an overwhelmingly skewed and partial media environment.
Radio, incidentally, is by far the most utilised news medium in Africa.
There are still only very few countries, among them South Africa, that are
successfully transforming former state propaganda tools into public
broadcasters. A variety of legal restrictions, finally, is also suppressing
the media across the continent. Sometimes, these are colonial leftovers,
which present-day rulers have deliberately and conveniently buried in a sea
of red tape, to be fished out at leisure to their own benefit, as in Gambia
or Zimbabwe. But most of the laws hampering the media today are home-made.
Blunt censorship, as in Egypt, Sudan, Mauritania and Niger; self-censorship,
as in Libya, Tunisia, Morocco and Guinea-Bissau; or politicised criminal
defamation laws, as in Ethiopia, Chad, Togo, Cameroon and Gabon, contribute
to making Africa a very difficult and dangerous place to work in as a
journalist.
THE AMERICAS
While journalists in the Americas – with the notable exception of Cuba –
were more independent than ever before, violent attacks on the media
continued with impunity in 1998. Ten journalists were killed in Colombia,
five in Mexico, four in Brazil, one in Guatemala, one in Peru, and one in
Canada – the first assassination of an editor in that country’s history.
Scores of others were threatened, harassed, detained, jailed, or physically
attacked.
With the end of the military governments and the gradual establishment of
multi-party democracies, Latin America’s media have become increasingly
independent, professional and powerful. However, violent attacks against
journalists have increased with this new-found power, as corrupt officials,
drug traffickers and organised criminals seek to prevent the media from
exposing their activities. And although government-sponsored violence is no
longer a major threat, authorities are using other methods – including
legal, administrative or economic pressure – to muzzle the media’s critical
reporting. Journalists in Argentina, Mexico, and Peru, for example, had to
contend with a barrage of litigation. Legal provisions adverse to press
freedom remain on the books in several Latin American countries, while
restrictive bills are under consideration in a number of legislatures. In
some countries, including Brazil and Uruguay, politicians were eager to
impose legal restrictions on community radio stations. The governments of
Nicaragua and Puerto Rico reportedly sought to intimidate newspapers by
withholding official advertising. In Bolivia, the Dominican Republic, Haiti,
and Mexico, abuses by the police, particularly use of excessive force, were
also a cause for concern.
In Argentina, various journalists and media outlets were handed down heavy
fines for libel or for causing “moral damage” to the head of state, as
President Carlos Menem and his supporters lashed out at the media for its
critical reporting on government corruption. The Argentine judiciary used
the controversial “right of reply” on several occasions, while the Senate
was studying a proposed bill to amend provisions in the penal code, which
would make the dissemination of material obtained through the use of hidden
microphones or cameras a punishable offence. Brazilian journalists outside
the major cities continued to face threats, harassment, physical attacks –
and even death. Four journalists, including one photographer, were killed in
1998. On the legal front, proposed
legislation, intended to update the 1967 press law, was said to contain
threats to press freedom.
The Chilean media – long shackled by General Pinochet’s military
dictatorship – was able to operate without any particular restrictions.
Exceptions to the rule were lawsuits brought against two publications and a
television station under the State Security Law, which makes defamation,
libel or slander of officials, including Supreme Court judges, a criminal
offence. Apart from the State Security Law, causes for concern were the
continuing existence of Article 25 of the Law on Advertising Abuses, which
grants judges discretionary power to ban the dissemination of information,
and restrictive provisions contained in the proposed new Criminal Procedures
Code.
For the eighth consecutive year, Colombia proved to be the most dangerous
country in Latin America to work in as a journalist. Ten journalists were
killed – at least four of them for their investigative work. Eight other
journalists were kidnapped and later released by guerrillas or paramilitary
groups.
Fidel Castro’s Communist regime – approaching its fortieth year in power –
continued to clamp down on journalists working for the country’s
illegally-operating independent news agencies. Cuban authorities routinely
harass, threaten, arrest and imprison independent journalists, often with a
goal of “persuading” them to leave the country. Three journalists are
serving prison terms, while at least two others, accused of libelling a
senior foreign ministry official and showing contempt for the President,
respectively, have trials pending. Visiting foreign correspondents are also
harassed, threatened or even expelled, while many international journalists
were denied visas to cover the historic visit of Pope John Paul II to the
island.
In Guatemala, journalists are still the target of harassment, threats, and
violent attacks, despite the end of the civil war and the disappearance of
the “death squads.” One journalist, Antonio Castillo Galvez, an editor for
the official television news programme, “Avances”, was gunned down by
unknown assailants on June 24 as he was leaving his residence in Guatemala
City. Apart from the physical violence against journalists, the greatest
threat to press freedom is the government’s use of economic pressure to
force media out of business, in particular campaigns to pressure advertisers
to cancel contracts with critical publications.
At least five journalists were murdered in Mexico, while the number of
journalists who were harassed, physically attacked, or received death
threats increased. In particular, journalists carrying out investigations
into drug trafficking and official corruption, or covering events in the
troubled states of Chiapas and Guerrero, were increasingly hindered in their
work. Mexico’s Chamber of Deputies passed legislation restricting the
ability of journalists to effectively report on events in the lower house,
and the Chamber’s Radio and Television Committee was considering a draft
bill on media, which, if approved, could harm the constitutionally
guaranteed freedoms of expression and of the press.
In Peru, Isabel Chumpitaz Panta, a radio journalist who championed peasant
farmers’ rights in a daily programme called “The Peoples’ Voice”, was shot
to death by unknown assailants, who also killed her husband and wounded her
brother.
The continuing persecution of the former owner of the Lima-based television
station Canal 2-Frecuencia Latina, Baruch Ivcher, whose Peruvian citizenship
was stripped and ownership rights suspended in 1997, sent an implicit
warning to critics of the government, while a former investigative
journalist for Canal 2, José Arrieta Matos, was forced to seek political
asylum in the United States. Throughout the year, journalists were subjected
to a systematic campaign of persecution, as President Alberto Fujimori
sought to intimidate and control the press in preparation of a bid for a
third term in office.
With the exception of the killing of Tara Singh Hayer, publisher and editor
of the Indo-Canadian Times, there were no serious infringements on press
freedom in either Canada or the United States, although 1998 was a year of
controversy for the press in both countries. In the US, the credibility of
the media was questioned when a joint CNN/Time report that alleged that US
forces had used sarin nerve gas during the Vietnam War had to be retracted.
CNN fired two reporters and reprimanded its star correspondent, Peter
Arnett. In other incidents, New Republic magazine fired one of its lead
writers for fabricating stories and the Boston Globe asked two of its
columnists to resign for fabricating or plagiarising material. In Canada,
1998 proved to be a year of major change and upheaval in the newspaper
industry, as Conrad Black – who owns more than half of the country’s
dailies, as well as the Daily Telegraph in Britain and the Jerusalem Post –
launched a new national daily, the National Post. Finally – in a move that
was welcomed by the Inter American Press Association (IAPA) and others – the
Organisation of American States’ Inter American Commission on Human Rights
(IACHR) announced on October 6 that it had appointed an Argentinian
attorney, Santiago A. Canton, as Special
Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. As Rapporteur, Canton will monitor,
promote and protect freedom of expression in the Americas, preparing annual
status reports for the IACHR and for the Organization of American States
(OAS) General Assembly. “With hundreds of journalists killed, many more
persecuted and the absence of an
adequate response to this problem, it is clear that much remains to be
done,” Canton said.
ASIA
True freedom of expression is still only an aspiration for the majority of
Asian countries; censorship remains prevalent, violence against the media,
commonplace. In 1998, Asia sent out mixed signals concerning its attitude
towards the media and the role of journalists. The economic and financial
crisis of 1997 and 1998 has had disastrous
consequences almost everywhere in Asia and governments – threatened by the
social, economic, and political instability – reacted differently in their
attempts to hold power. Some, such as Malaysia, tightened control of local
and foreign media in order to pre-empt any challenge to the leadership;
others, for instance Vietnam, showed some signs of liberalising in an effort
to cultivate international goodwill and keep open channels of aid and
investment. Additionally, Singapore’s theories of a so-called “Asian model”
of journalism are spreading fast through Asia, adopted by more and more
governments to justify censorship and prohibit the import of specific
publications, which apparently could undermine the stability of the state or
contravene moral norms. Asian leaders often criticise what they call the
“Western model” of journalism, in which the media are free to report the
news as they see it. They argue that the role of domestic media is to act
responsibly, which is generally understood to mean supporting the goals of
the elected leadership and the preservation of social harmony. Malaysian
Prime Minister Mahatir has described Westerners’ notion of a free press as
the “freedom to tell lies” and said that Western media coverage is
interested only in attracting readers without considering the damaging
implications for society.
China’s policies in 1998 clearly show the co-existence of these conflicting
tendencies: on one hand, signing international agreements on basic human
freedoms helped establish a dialogue with countries critical of China’s
human rights practices and indicated some liberalising tendencies. On the
other hand, the continued persecution by the government of journalists,
writers, and political activists stems from the fear that a free flow of
information might bring social and political instability and threaten the
leadership.
Certainly clearer defined, but not for the better, is the official attitude
toward the media in countries such as Burma (Myanmar) or Afghanistan, where
even minimal attempts to report the facts are ruthlessly crushed. Burma’s
military junta keeps a strict control on the media, leaving no freedom
either to local or foreign journalists. The Burmese press operates under
strict censorship and citizens risk jail if they are found guilty of giving
“false information” domestically or internationally. Since the junta took
over, at least fourteen Burmese journalists have been sent to jail, some
have died there; and the situation in 1998 hasn’t shown signs of
improvement. In Afghanistan, the fundamentalist Taliban regime have closed
down local media and prevented, sometimes through physical means, the
foreign press from covering the war and other sensitive issues. Any source
of information or contact with the outside is considered a possible threat.
An Iranian journalist was killed in 1998 by the Taliban forces and
journalists working for foreign radio stations, broadcasting from outside
the border of the Taliban territory, are often harassed and even physically
attacked.
Legislation in Cambodia has a chilling effect on the press, containing
provisions of jail terms for journalists found guilty of defamation and
restrictive elements which are susceptible to official abuse. Furthermore,
the independence of the judiciary is seriously questioned by many
journalists. The elections in 1998 could not be deemed free and fair,
largely because access to the media for the opposition parties was severely
restricted.
The fall of President Suharto gave a new lease of life to Indonesian
journalists. To the surprise of many, his successor B.J. Habibie has started
his tenure promisingly from the media’s perspective, presenting grounds for
cautious optimism.
Civil wars and internal conflicts in Sri Lanka and Nepal are the major
causes of harassment of journalists. In the course of 1998 in Nepal, at
least eight journalists ended up in prison and newspapers have been seized
by police for denouncing police violence, corruption, and the misconduct of
security forces, who were presumed to have killed civilians in clashes with
a Maoist rebel group in the west of the country. The Sri Lankan government,
in its fight against the Tamil separatist movement, imposed direct
censorship of military news under emergency regulations. This is obviously
more part of a political strategy than a military requirement for national
security, which the government pretends.
Even in countries such as the Philippines or Macao, where the media remains
among the freest in Asia, journalists often come under attack from local
organised crime groups and drug syndicates, intimidating reporters who
investigate their activities. Almost forty journalists have been killed in
the Philippines since democracy was restored in 1986, two of them in 1998.
Most of the journalists killed were investigating official corruption and
drug trafficking. In September 1998, a bomb blast injured ten journalists in
Macau. This was just the latest in a series of attacks against journalists
who openly report criminal activities. Macau has been rocked in recent years
by rising crime and frequent bombing, made worse by rival gangs, or triads,
fighting violent turf wars to gain control of illicit businesses.
The former Soviet Asian republics are making only nominal progress in
adopting a democratic system, and journalists, broadcasters, and individual
citizens enjoy little freedom to report facts or to express their opinion.
If the political situation seems to be slowly normalising in Tajikistan
after the end of the civil war, the country remains a dangerous place for
journalists, as the killing of a noted Tajik editor in 1998 shows.
Kazakhstan’s president, in anticipation of the 1999 presidential elections,
consolidated his control over the media, strictly banning any criticism of
the president and the government. And the Kyrgyz government took steps
several times, in 1997 and 1998, to salvage its reputation for tolerance of
independent and opposition media. These steps, however, appear to be mere
gestures designed to placate Western opinion and investors, and attempt to
mask a pattern of attacks against the press. Uzbek president Karimov
recently professed a “commitment to democratic media and reform”, which he
attempted to prove with the passage of a Law on the Mass Media. Several
articles of this law, however, are worded in such a way that they could be
used to punish government critics; one provision, for example, makes
journalists responsible for the truth of the information contained in their
news stories, potentially subjecting journalists to prosecution if a
government official disagrees with a news report. Probably the most
repressive of the former Soviet states is Turkmenistan, where freedom of
speech violations against local and foreign reporters have not diminished
since 1992 and the government-controlled television and press provide few
details on the country’s political and social troubles.
Twenty five journalists are in prison in Turkey, more than any other country
in the world. Journalists who are interpreted as advocating secession for
the Kurdish people are the primary targets of the Turkish government’s
clampdown; and criticising the military has also resulted in the
imprisonment of journalists.
Several journalists were murdered in India this year. While it is generally
believed that they weren’t killed in connection with their journalistic
activity, the fact that no arrests have been made keeps the question open.
Aside from the murders, the year was punctuated with numerous cases of
assault on journalists and threats to their lives.
In Bangladesh, the editor of the Daily Runner was gunned down on his way
home. Dozens of other journalists were attacked while exercising their
professional duties during the course of the year.
Violence has also become a tried and tested method of expressing discontent
with journalists in Pakistan. Similarly, media workers covering events in
Israel and Palestine are frequently subjected to official harassment and
violence.
In the Middle East, there are very few reports of press freedom violations
simply because there is little press freedom. Countries such as Saudi
Arabia, Syria and Iraq do not tolerate dissent in any shape or form and
maintain an iron-clad grip on the media. Others, such as Bahrain, Qatar, and
now even Iran, are gradually loosening the grip. There have been mixed
reactions to the Iranian President Mohammad Khatami’s first complete year in
office. While there has been a distinct thawing of censorship policies, the
horrific murder of three writers late in the year by a “rogue element”
within the Iranian secret police drove home the persisting perils of
advocating a transparent society.
With few exceptions, Asia has still a long way to go before freedom of
expression becomes a real part of life. Suppressing news is still very much
an accepted practice.
See Part 2 for conclusion of 1998 Press Freedom Review
