(IPI/IFEX) – The following is an IPI letter to British government authorities: H. E. Prime Minister Tony Blair MP Prime Minister’s Office 10 Downing Street London, SW1A 2AA United Kingdom Fax: +44 207 925 09 18 H.E. Hilary Benn MP Secretary of State for International Development Department for International Development 1 Palace Street London SW1E […]
(IPI/IFEX) – The following is an IPI letter to British government authorities:
H. E. Prime Minister Tony Blair MP
Prime Minister’s Office
10 Downing Street
London, SW1A 2AA
United Kingdom
Fax: +44 207 925 09 18
H.E. Hilary Benn MP
Secretary of State for International Development Department for International Development
1 Palace Street
London SW1E 5HE
United Kingdom
Fax +44 207 023 0019
H.E. Lord Hughes of Woodside
President of the AAPPG
G11 Norman Shaw South
House of Commons
London SW1A OAA
United Kingdom
Fax: +44 207 219 2485
Vienna, 27 June 2006
Your Excellencies,
The International Press Institute (IPI), the global network of editors, media executives and leading journalists in over 120 countries, congratulates the British government in its attempts to reduce corruption, which represents an obstacle to development in Africa.
IPI welcomes the March 2006 report of the Africa All Party Parliamentary Group (AAPPG) titled, “The Other Side of the Coin.” The report provides a detailed examination of corruption and money laundering and sets out a series of recommendations on how western governments can support the fight against corruption in Africa.
Regarding press freedom, the report calls for increased support to develop an independent media and argues, “Supporting the capacity of the media to retain their independence in the face of government pressure and to carry out investigative work, for example, through sharing journalistic best practice, is worthy of support.”
Another significant development is the report’s recommendation that “[d]onors should take into account any government attempts to curtail the independence of the media when considering budget support.”
In its reply, on 22 June 2006, the British government agrees that freezing “budget support” sends “a clear message that donors no longer turn a blind eye to corruption.” It then states that, as one of three conditions, the Department for International Development (DfID), will interrupt aid if “countries are in significant violation of human rights or other international obligations.”
Concerning the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), the British government’s reply acknowledged the importance of “assessing governance issues in partner countries” and said it would “consider the recommendations of peer reviews alongside all other relevant, available information.”
On reviewing both the AAPPG’s report and the British government’s reply, IPI finds much that is praiseworthy, but is concerned that the government’s views fail to reflect the weight given to the independent media by the AAPPG.
In IPI’s opinion, the call for donors to take account of attempts to curtail media independence is a significant advance in the understanding of the role played by the media in combating corruption. It is also clear evidence of the growing belief that, where necessary, the disposal of development aid and press freedom should be linked.
Indeed, the failure to improve the press freedom environment, at the same time as providing development assistance, may mean that there is a greater chance of donor funding being wasted because of corruption. The independent media can help to prevent this not only by exposing corruption, but also by discouraging it.
IPI believes, therefore, that the British government should not merely seek to fall back on existing mechanisms as it has done in its 22 June reply, but should revise its entire developmental framework to ensure that a free and independent media sits at the core of its strategies to achieve change in Africa.
To help achieve this, DfID should redefine its conditions for freezing aid in countries where corruption presents a serious impediment to its work. Any new definition should specifically mention press freedom and access to information, with development aid linked, where necessary, to the encouragement of an open media environment.
On the question of the APRM, it is insufficient to merely state that the recommendations of a peer review should be taken into account when considering the country for assistance. This is particularly true when there are countries that are unwilling to join the APRM. In IPI’s opinion, a much stronger approach would be to inform countries seeking aid that it is essential for them to join the peer review mechanism.
With the above in mind, IPI invites the British government to bridge the gap between its own thinking on this issue and that of the AAPPG’s and to start the process of redefining its policies towards the independent media in Africa.
By doing so, it will be encouraging an important debate that may well have considerable benefits not only for DfID and its important work, but also for many other donor institutions around the world.
We thank you for your attention.
Yours sincerely,
Johann P. Fritz
Director
