Institute for Domestic & International Affairs, Inc.
United Nations Human Rights Commission Freedom of Speech and the Press Director: Ruchi Gupta
Š 2009 Institute for Domestic & International Affairs, Inc. (IDIA) This document is solely for use in preparation for Philadelphia Model United Nations 2009. Use for other purposes is not permitted without the express written consent of IDIA. For more information, please write us at idiainfo@idia.net
Policy Dilemma ______________________________________________________________ 1 Chronology __________________________________________________________________ 3 10 December 1948: Article 19 of the UDHR ____________________________________________ 3 1991: Media Freedom Helps Usher in Collapse of the Soviet Union ________________________ 4 1999: Yugoslavian Expulsion of Media from the Region__________________________________ 6 2006: Reporters without Borders Names Uzbekistan as an 'Enemy of the Internet' ___________ 7 7 October 2006: Journalist Anna Politkovskaya Murdered _______________________________ 8 2007-2008: Death Toll of Journalists Worldwide Highest Since 1994 _______________________ 9
Actors and Interests ___________________________________________________________ 9 “Not-Free” States _________________________________________________________________ 9 “Free” States ____________________________________________________________________ 11 NGOs Geared Towards Freedom of Speech and Press Safety ____________________________ 13
Possible Causes _____________________________________________________________ 14 Governments Seek to Retain Power by Enforcing Antiquated Media Laws _________________ 14 Insufficient Laws Protecting Members of the Press_____________________________________ 16 Inadequate Resources Makes Media Reliant on State ___________________________________ 18
Projections and Implications___________________________________________________ 20 Conclusion _________________________________________________________________ 23 Discussion Questions _________________________________________________________ 24 Works Cited ________________________________________________________________ 25
PhilMUN 2009
1
Policy Dilemma A free press is often considered a marker of stability within states, serving as a method of greater accountability between a government and its people, as well as providing a way to monitor and sustain democratic processes. With the dissolution of Communism in the early 1990s, many people in Eastern Europe saw a new model of government as indicative of expanding freedoms in the press. In reality, however, the press has long since served as a tool for Eastern European states to control their citizens, by limiting the ways in which media is broadcast and circulated within the state, or by dictating exactly what news individuals are permitted to receive. Any gains in media freedoms that might have been made following the breakup of the Soviet Union have been lost in more recent years as governments struggle to exert control over their people. Calculated censorship, reports crafted specifically after state interests, a pervasive ethnocentric bias, and other troubling characteristics exemplify the mode of reporting that for many years, Eastern European governments have stringently enforced in their press.1 Before, human rights abuses as a result of these actions were limited to the simple refusal to afford individuals the ability to disseminate and consume information as they wished. Recently, however, this enforcement of state interests has reached a dangerous level; increasingly, legislative measures and governmental actions in the region have contributed to the decline in both freedoms of press and of speech in general. By taking repressive, and sometimes violent, measures against their citizens, states seek to exert total authority.2 NGOs and journalists, as well as other sectors of civil society, have been persecuted, jailed, or otherwise (directly and indirectly) oppressed due to efforts of the government to assert economic, political, and social control over the media and humanitarian operations in the region. Many people assumed that freedoms in a post-Communist world would be complete. The transition period from Soviet rule to post-Soviet rule has not changed the 1
M.L Stein, "Free Press Still Rare in Eastern Europe." Editor & Publisher 127, no. 18 (30 April, 1994): 16. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed 19 October 2008).
PhilMUN 2009
2
inherent attitude of all those involved, however. The historical vestiges of authoritarian rule linger in post-Communist states, manifesting in the ideals with which new leaders take office. Privatization of media, an action that was thought to guarantee media independence, has instead led to scant resources that are not state-controlled or stateowned. Journalists are then forced to advance the interests of the outlet’s owners (usually the state, or state-encouraged advertisers) instead of focusing on objectivity or truth.3 Other proposed solutions to the tightening hold over free speech have included: the release of printing and distribution of print publications from government control, an increase in newsprint supply to counteract the monetary needs of publications, increased and varied advertising bases, and a partial ownership by foreign interests in order to diversify the interests driving the outlet.4 These solutions, however, do not address the growing human rights abuses that governments have perpetrated against journalists and the public in an effort to control speech. In states such as Ukraine, Russia, Romania, Uzbekistan, and Moldova (in addition to many others), citizens suffer imprisonment, physical attacks, censorship laws, and restrictions on vital elements such as pay, housing, and food as a result of their speaking out. The United Nations (UN) has taken efforts to impose sanctions on states that do not comply with the recommendation to increase freedom of speech, but with a list of several human rights abuses in these states, freedom of speech comes secondary to other areas of focus. Additionally, this problem concerns more than just Eastern Europe. If freedom of speech continues to decline, democratic processes and the governments that profess to abide by them lose credibility. The responsibility of the UN to uphold human rights is also important; if free speech continues to be impeded by the states of Eastern Europe, then more individuals will suffer the effects and the UN will fail in its mandate of maintaining the human rights of all.
2
Ibid. Ibid. 4 Ibid. 3
PhilMUN 2009
3
Chronology 10 December 1948: Article 19 of the UDHR The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) came into effect on 10 December 1948. The document, signed at Palais de Chaillot, Paris, represents the first declarative global statement on the necessity to protect human rights in the wake the tragic loss of life experienced during the Second World War.5 The UDHR has become the standard the international community follows concerning the important issue of human rights, but the bulk of the UDHR represents an interest and concern with human rights that preceded the initial document. The Four Freedoms envisioned during the Second World War first outlined the ideas of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom from fear, and freedom from want. The UN Charter went on to “[reaffirm] faith in fundamental human rights, and dignity and worth of the human person” as well as committing all member states to “[the] universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.” These provisions became particularly necessary in the eyes of the international community following the human rights abuses that were prevalent during the Second World War, such as the genocide of Jewish populations all throughout Europe and the sexual abuses committed by armies on both the Allied and Axis sides.6 The adoption of the UDHR by the General Assembly of the UN in 1948 showed a renewed determination to keep the protection of human rights on the international agenda. This document affirmed the UN’s commitment to human rights, an important event to the UNHRC in particular, calling all its articles to the attention of the committee. Perhaps none of the articles in the UDHR are as pertinent as Article 19. The main body of the UDHR is divided into four “columns” of thought: the first column (Articles 3-11) concerns the basic rights of an individual, such as the right to life and prohibition of slavery. The third column (18-21) concerns spiritual, religious, and political freedoms, 5
“UDHR: History of Human Rights,” UDHR, http://www.universalrights.net/main/creation.htm (accessed 19 October 2008)
PhilMUN 2009
4
and the fourth column (22-27) outlines social, economic, and cultural rights. The second column (13-17) addresses the individual’s rights in civil and political society, and is the section containing Article 19.7 Article 19, which reads “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers,”8 is the definitive reference when discussing lack of press or speech freedoms worldwide. Critics of state interference in the media often invoke Article 19, and in the current climate in Eastern Europe, the correlation between human rights abuses and a decline in freedom of speech is even more direct. The right to seek, receive, and impart information through any media is particularly important—as this basic human right is denied, signatory states blatantly disregard the agreement outlined in the document. Without Article 19 and the UDHR, those who protest states that are limiting free speech might not have any basis to their claim that human rights are universal; it was the adoption of this declaration that first ensured that press freedoms and freedom of speech were in fact human rights and deserved to be upheld.
1991: Media Freedom Helps Usher in Collapse of the Soviet Union The collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), or the Soviet Union, led to period of renewed faith and uncertainty throughout the region, a period that was called transitory by some and a road to prosperity by others. Though a resistance to central control over Soviet states and an increase of democratization preceded the breakdown of the Soviet Union, its ultimate demise proved to be bankruptcy and largescale corruption. Some critics claim hallmarks of Soviet rule can still be seen throughout the region in present-day, authoritarian governments who refer back to the circumstances surrounding the collapse of the regime as a justification of their own stringent and unfair 6
Ibid. Mary Ann Glendon, A World Made New: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Random House Trade Paperbacks: June 2001, p. 62-64. 8 “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” UDHR, http://www.universalrights.net/main/declarat.htm (accessed 19 October 2008) 7
PhilMUN 2009
5
media restrictions. The dissolution of the Soviet Union began as early as 1985, but did not reach completion until 1991, when Mikhail Gorbachev was forced to give up power, and fragmentation of the Soviet Union into independent states began.9 Under Gorbachev, reform-minded policies such as glasnost (political openness), perestroika (economic restructuring) and uskoreniye (speeding of economic development) did nothing to help or hide the fact that the Soviet economy was plagued with hidden inflation, supply shortages, rapid industrialization, and skyrocketing costs in order to maintain superpower status.10 In the end, the Soviet Union was unable to sustain itself. Before that, however, the Soviet Union was faced with other setbacks that led to a rise in dissatisfaction with the status quo. One such setback was Gorbachev’s attempts to change the Communist system, which actually resulted in a counterpoint to his goals. One of those counterpoints featured the press, in particular. Due to the idea of glasnost, the attitude towards free speech and the media relaxed. The Communist party found that its absolute grip on the media had been loosened, and before long, embarrassing and damaging reports of the true state of Soviet society and economy began to circulate throughout the region.11 The ongoing war in Afghanistan (which was already discrediting Moscow’s power) and the Chernobyl disaster received widespread attention, as well as problems such as corruption, pollution, drug abuse, and poor housing. The media during this time brought to light some of the biggest failings of the government, and in doing so, only widened the gap that was growing as a result of deep dissatisfaction with the regime.12 The role of the media in the collapse of the Soviet Union is integral to the understanding of why states in the region today fear the press. The power of the media in a free state is seemingly limitless. Among these powers is the power to reveal, to unveil, to hide, to turn the tides of opinions, and to make or unmake a leader. The collapse of the 9
Edward Acton, Russia, The Tsarist and Soviet Legacy, Longmann Group Ltd: 1995, p. 67 Ibid. 11 Ibid. 10
PhilMUN 2009
6
Soviet Union altered the course of free speech in Eastern Europe by illustrating to states why a free press was so dangerous. Without this element, there might be no basis under which states in the region make the judgment to restrict information dissemination.
1999: Yugoslavian Expulsion of Media from the Region The decision by Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic to expel one hundred journalists from the region during the conflict that tore through the Balkans in the 1990s remains characteristic of the way state interests control the flow of information in Eastern Europe, especially in cases of war or interethnic tension. Long since criticized for his usage of state-controlled media to purport an aggressive and exaggerated account of ethnically based attacks by Bosnian Muslims and Croats against the Serbian people, Milosevic exacerbated ethnic tensions and enabled widespread violence throughout the region with calculated propaganda, meant to excuse or justify the increasing attacks against ethnic minorities. The efforts, according to former officials, fell under the title Operation Opera.13 Serbian television, many reports say, created a curious illusion where Sarajevo had never been besieged and where Vukovar, a devastated Croatian town, had been liberated instead of systematically destroyed.14 This illusion was representative of a world that Milosevic did not want revealed. To this end, as genocide and violence escalated in 1999, approximately one hundred foreign journalists were unceremoniously ousted from the region. The Serbian Information Law of 1998 was the initial step that legally allowed the government to fine or ban media outlets that were deemed to purport fear, panic, and defeatism.15 It was the 1999 expulsion from Yugoslavia of more than one hundred journalists from NATO member states that demonstrated the state’s power to control the consumption and dissemination of information within the region. Officially, the 12
Ibid. “Yugoslav Army’s Central Intelligence Unit: Clandestine Operations” Coalition for International Justice, 2002, http://www.borrull.org/e/noticia.php?id=11236 (accessed 19 October 2008) 14 Renaud de la Brosse, "Political Propaganda and the Plan to Create 'A State For All Serbs: Consequences of Using Media for Ultra-Nationalist Ends," http://hague.bard.edu/reports/de_la_brosse_pt1.pdf, (accessed 19 October 2008) 15 David Bauder, “Serb Government Orders Journalists Expelled,” Associated Press, 1999, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4179/is_/ai_n11713844 (accessed 19 October 2008) 13
PhilMUN 2009
7
Yugoslavian government said that foreign journalists were permitted to stay “as long as they [the journalists] were objective.” Objectivity in the eyes of Milosevic was far different than objectivity in the eyes of the journalists, however, and many fled or were forcibly removed from the area.16 Physical violence, revoking of visas, and other forms of harassment were used on the journalists in an effort to find out sources and to, according to many reporters, stop the flow of information in the region. This effort is a definitive event in the history of free press and speech in the region, highlighting the ways in which the detrimental effects of ethnic tension, conflict, and lack of sustainability across many categories is increased by actions taken against the press.
2006: Reporters without Borders Names Uzbekistan as an 'Enemy of the Internet' Reporters without Borders, a non-governmental organization (NGO) geared towards increasing press freedoms, released a report in 2006 declaring fifteen states as ‘enemies’ of the internet. With the evolution of the internet as a vital tool in news reporting, both by citizen bloggers and the easier dissemination of information at a rapid, more cost-effective pace, the placement of Uzbekistan on the list directs the world’s attention to Central and Eastern Europe in the case of limiting media freedoms across many different avenues, whether it be print, broadcast, or internet publications. The increased tendency to use the internet as a tool to inform the public of government practices and human rights abuses likely prompted the lockdown of certain sites, but Reporters without Borders made clear in their report that such actions were not acceptable in any case and that press of all forms was to remain free.17 Uzbekistan’s situation is representative of a troubling trend in Eastern Europe: the tendency to reference the technology age as unmanageable and therefore unable to be placed under restrictions, when in reality, filtering systems and threats can adequately deter the dissemination of cyber news. Though it denies the existence of Internet filtering, the 16
Ibid. “Uzbekistan Blocks Newsuz.com,” Global Voices Advocacy, 2008, http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2008/02/21/uzbekistan-blocks-newsuzcom-website/ (accessed 19 October 17
PhilMUN 2009
8
Uzbekistan government has been found by the Open Net Initiative (ONI) to have the most pervasive and intensive filtering system of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).18
7 October 2006: Journalist Anna Politkovskaya Murdered Since the early 1990s, journalists in Russia who have covered the situation in Chechnya, documented corruption, published storied about organized crime and administrative dealings, and reported on other suspicious activities in the state have been murdered. As of 2006 and since 1992, forty-three journalists were killed due to professional activity.19 Nine cases of suspicious deaths of journalists in 2006 alone (along with fifty-nine assaults on journalists and twelve attacks on editorial offices) made the state one of the deadliest in the world that year for reporters.20 Perhaps nothing demonstrated this on a world-wide scale as well as the death of reporter Anna Politkovskaya. On 7 October, Politkovskaya was shot in her apartment building.21 Well known for her criticisms of Russia’s dealings in Chechnya and the pro-Russia Chechen government, Politkovskaya’s death demonstrated the insidious side of reporting the news in Russia. Some claimed that her murder was an assassination by the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (FSB), while others loudly decried the lack of involvement from Vladimir Putin in the investigation after Politkovskaya’s death. Many claimed that this inaction was a calculated show of ignoring independent media in Russia.22 More importantly, this event and the inaction following it (indeed, the escalation of journalists’ deaths in the following years) indicate the importance of addressing free speech in the region for the sake of limiting more human rights abuses. 2008) 18 Ibid. 19 “Attacks on the Press: Central Asia and Europe,” CPJ, http://www.cpj.org/attacks05/europe05/russia_05.html (accessed 19 October 2008) 20 Ibid. 21 “Anna Politkovskaya, Prominent Russian Journalist, Putin Critic and Human Rights Activist, Murdered in Moscow” Democracy Now, 2006, http://www.democracynow.org/2006/10/9/anna_politkovskaya_prominent_russian_journalist_putin (accessed 19 October 2008) 22 Ibid.
PhilMUN 2009
9
2007-2008: Death Toll of Journalists Worldwide Highest Since 1994 In 2007, the NGO Committee to Protect Journalists (CJP) reported that year’s statistics for journalists killed in direct relation to their work: the number, sixty-three, signaled the highest number in more than a decade. For the fifth straight year, Iraq was the deadliest area for journalists, with Somalia a close second.23 The significance of the report is the parallel that it draws to 1994, which was the last time the death toll was as high. During that time, conflicts in Algeria, Bosnia, and Rwanda made reporting the news a dangerous and deadly profession. The mirroring of those numbers in 2007 indicates another period of time in which conflicts worldwide gave rise to more repressive conditions for journalists, and the growing need for institutions that will guarantee freedom of speech and the safety of those in pursuit of it.24 The 2008 World Press Freedoms Index demonstrates numbers that have stayed the same or risen in much of the Eastern European area; though the 2009 index has not been released yet, the pattern promises to continue if the problem is not addressed.
Actors and Interests “Not-Free” States As described by the annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index conducted and released by Reporters Without Borders (RWB), not-free states are states that are either non-democratic or that exhibit increasingly undemocratic practices when monitoring the press. Not-free states view media freedoms as especially problematic because a completely free and independent press often undermines the political and practical ideology of these governments. In order to suppress opposition and promote a specific agenda, states maintain strict control over the media, physically and financially forcing
23
“Journalists Deaths Highest Since 1994,” UNESCO, 2007, http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.phpURL_ID=25863&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html (accessed 19 October 2008) 24 “Reporters Without Borders: Press Freedoms Day by Day,” Reporters Without Borders, http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=29031 (accessed 19 October 2008)
PhilMUN 2009
10
journalists and editors to tow the desired government line.25 In a world increasingly split by matters of international security and internal stability and control, not-free states have a more vested interest in making sure that the media purports the same viewpoints as state officials, either by legally constricting what journalists may report, or by punishing media interests that dare to report anything that may prove unbeneficial to the government in charge. Not-free states notoriously seek to infringe on the rights of journalists who aim to reveal corruption, embezzlement, and rampant self-enrichment at the state level. Journalists in not-free states are also insufficiently protected against legal and physical retaliation from governments.26 Especially in Eastern Europe, where police control extends in an oftentimes vicelike grip over media interests, everyday more and more journalists face arbitrary arrests and detention on grounds such as being “troublemakers,” “terrorists,” or “spies.” The journalists are usually reporting on behind-the-scenes events that prove embarrassing or politically discrediting for the government power currently in office, and as a result, reporters and editors are either physically threatened or killed, or their accounts are frozen and sources harassed in order to make their jobs harder.27 The contentious history of conflict in the region also gives way to increased government suspicion of polarization amidst the population, making media outlets more susceptible to random and stringent accusations of supporting opposition parties and therefore being shut down by overzealous governments.28 With no end in sight to the problematic aspects of post-Cold War construction and Westernization of the region, media freedoms are one way governments feel they are able to control the stability of their states. Many methods these governments employ are brutal, authoritarian, and designed to cast a false image to populations that does not
25
Ibid. “Détente is Not Around the Corner, Despite History,” Reporters Without Borders, http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=740 (accessed 19 October 2008) 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid. 26
PhilMUN 2009
11
match with government deed.29 Criticism of the government is strictly regulated in many not-free states, such as Slovenia, with legislation that enables immediate and “equal” response by the government.30 Spin control, jail time, intimidation tactics, and restrictions on information available to the press are all hallmarks of non-free state action when it comes to interfering with the media. Uzbekistan, Belarus, Russia, and Armenia in particular are regions where press freedoms have deteriorated to such a level that NGOs and journalist advocates have taken notice. These states are either ranked on the World Press Freedom index as some of the worst states in the European region for press freedoms, or are commonly reported on by worldwide media outlets as having restrictive media practices.31 Recent elections and tension within the region have caused these states to cement governments that seek to eliminate press independence in an already contentious environment, ultimately proving representative of the not-free state.
“Free” States Conversely from not-free states, free states are often democracies (both young and old) that enjoy a largely unrestricted press and corresponding free speech laws. Free states are characterized by their free presses, the increased privatization of media resources, and a marked lack of government intervention with the press overall. These states also enjoy legislative protection against abuses of free press, using laws and constitutions to ensure that citizens are entitled to free speech without any government involvement. That being said, these governments also employ safeguards against libel and press-related sedition, warning against abuses by the press as well.32 Though internationally recognized as democratic states, free states also exhibit their own forms of restriction on the media. Not nearly as intense or restrictive as the measures imposed on 29
Ibid. “Journalists Sound the Alarm on Press Freedom in Europe,” EurActive.com, 4 March 2008, http://www.euractiv.com/en/pa/journalists-sound-alarm-press-freedom-europe/article-170717 (accessed 19 October 2008) 31 “Détente is Not Around the Corner, Despite History” (accessed 19 October 2008) 32 “Map of Press Freedom,” Freedom House, 2007, http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=251&country=7084&year=2006 (accessed 19 October 2008) 30
PhilMUN 2009
12
not-free states, but limiting all the same, free states grapple particularly with the issue of forcing journalists to reveal confidential sources and being found out in paying journalists off for favorable media coverage. Although this is a less violent and less overt (but equally as corrupt, in some areas) example, free states still parallel not-free states in their practices of legislation that prevents an unfettered dissemination of information. Free states are similar to not-free states in that governments in power rarely desire to be challenged by their press, and often undertake every effort to discredit or cease the processes of the press in revealing incriminating information about the state, using state security as a pretense in some cases.33 Free states differ from not-free states in that the press is an inherently stronger voice of the people in these regions, a private resource (which means privately funded and not reliant on government funds) and an institution that is independently utilized and unregulated under laws allowing for free speech and freedom of expression. Free states purport the need for a truly free press in order to maintain the success of democracy, keeping communication open between the government and its people as well as protecting the rights of human beings to receive basic information without restrictions placed on either the journalist or the reader for being involved in an information transfer (consumption or dissemination of news) that may prove unflattering for the government.34 States such as the United States (US), the United Kingdom (UK), and France are commonly regarded democracies, though they rank somewhere in the high twenties in the annual Worldwide Free Press Index.35 The five freest states are Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Iceland, and the Netherlands. This is perhaps attributed to the fact that the democratic “powerhouses” such as the US, the UK, and France are all involved with a shift in global attention to terrorism and interventionism, extending hands into Iraq and altering other elements of foreign policy, consequently inviting more criticism from their citizens. As a result of this criticism, these governments are more apt to institute 33
Ibid Ibid. 35 “Press Freedoms in 2007,” Reporters Without Borders, 2007, http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=11715 34
PhilMUN 2009
13
legislation like the US Patriot Act, which places conditions on the freedom of expression in the state.36 Though Eastern Europe is mostly populated with not-free states, some states such as Slovakia, Latvia, and Estonia do rank high in the Free State Index, but this could be more of an effect of decreasing reports of violence rather than a marked lack of violence occurring.37
NGOs Geared Towards Freedom of Speech and Press Safety There are many sectors of civil society geared towards the protection of free speech and press, but often times these groups face just as much if not more repression than simple journalists or individuals involved in the media would. The underlying reasoning for this is the fact that many organizations geared towards press freedoms are in a better position to disseminate information using tools such as the internet, as well as circulating publications, surveys, and reports urging governments to reform their press practices. NGOs are not under the control of any particular state, so though their involvement within a foreign state is limited, once they procure information, they can more freely ensure that the information reaches a wider population, as well as urge for more advocacy for increased press freedoms and the rights of journalists.38 For this reason, NGOs often feel dangerous to governments in not-free states, and their on-theground involvement is scrutinized and limited with strict enforcement. The tie between NGOs and media also demonstrates most aptly what NGO interests are when considering the problem of limiting press freedoms: the attempt to censor the press could lead to limits in individual freedoms, the same way that an attempt to limit NGO power could lead to limits in individual freedoms.39 Due to this relation, NGOs are most interested in upholding media freedoms and limiting government restrictions on the press. To this end, NGOs often are responsible for accruing necessary data and statistical research meant to (accessed 19 October 2007) 36 “Map of Press Freedom in 2007” (accessed 19 October 2008) 37 “Press Freedoms in 2007” (accessed 19 October 2008) 38 “Press Freedom and Philanthropy,” Mail and Guardian Online, http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/shelaghgastrow/2008/07/08/press-freedom-and-philanthropy/ (accessed 19 October 2008) 39 Ibid.
PhilMUN 2009
14
aid those in the media with reporting their news. NGO involvement in Eastern Europe has included action from such groups as Reporters Without Borders (RWB), the Committee to Protect Journalists (CJP), and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Representative of Media Freedom (OSCERMF).40 These organizations in particular work with other NGOs and sectors of civil society, as well as with journalists, in order to form various projects and programs to help increase media freedoms. Some initiatives have included annual reports of free press states all across the world, and more in depth surveys assessing the press freedoms in individual states. These reports better equip foreign journalists with the knowledge they need when covering certain events. These organizations also champion causes such as petitioning governments to release jailed journalists, or to address the murders of journalists under disturbing government-related circumstances.41 The primary goals of these NGOs are to engage civil society in the process of monitoring freedoms of media to make citizens more responsible for the news that they are consuming. NGOs seek to hold governments accountable, by educating the public on the limitations being placed on the news circulating around the world, and the injustices suffered by those whose occupation of pursuing the news automatically endangers them. Organizations such as CJP have extended preventative plans such as emergency response programs for journalists, and providing financial and non-financial aid in cases of extreme need.42 Other organizations such as RWB set up networks of aid for journalists to seek help from non-state actors in the event of an emergency. To date, however, in many Eastern European countries, there is no state-provided solution or recourse for journalists and the NGOs who seek to help them.
Possible Causes Governments Seek to Retain Power by Enforcing Antiquated 40
“NGOs Working on Press Freedoms,” Iraq Analysis, www.iraqanalysis.org/INFO/268 (accessed 19 October 2008) 41 Ibid. 42 “Journalist Assistance,” CJP.org, http://www.cpj.org/campaigns/assistance/ (accessed 20 November 2008)
PhilMUN 2009
15
Media Laws Much of the reasoning behind harsh responses from the government concerning media freedoms is the fact that most Eastern European states are still negotiating the balance between democracy and total control over the population. As a result of corruption, ethnic tensions, or the threat of general disorder, those in power fear discovery and exposure by the press, therefore exerting tighter restrictions and becoming increasingly hostile to members of the media. Aside from illegal shakedowns of editorial officials and hired killings of press members, governments often construct actual legal recourse for their own actions through the reinforcement or creation of media laws that perpetuate censorship. Though some states, such as Albania, claim press freedom is a constitutionally guaranteed right, the legislature is easily subject to pressure, and slow to move to enforce those rights. Moreover, other laws make it so journalists are forced to write such sanitized articles that the truth rarely comes out, otherwise they risk jail-time or other punishments.43 For example, in Albania, defamation and libel are still criminal offenses, commanding jail-time of up to two years. The Albanian Prime Minister has instructed government officials to use right of reply instead of civil or criminal suits, however, and there were no major cases of libel reported in 2006.44 In other states, however, though press freedoms are also a constitutional right, the government interferes with public broadcasting and utilizes civil and criminal courts to bring lawsuits against news outlets that report on certain instances that cast government officials in a negative light. In Slovakia and Slovenia, there has been an influx of legislation that intimates such ideas as: outlets which “condone socially harmful behavior” could face fines, or, outlets must give equal face time to government officials when an article challenges them.45 These ideas are problematic, because they infringe upon the basic right of press members to report 43
“Freedom House Modules: Albania,” Freedom House, 2007, http://www.freedomhouse.org/modules/publications/pfs/modDisplayCountryDetail2.cfm?country=6680&year=2007 (accessed 20 November 2008) 44 Ibid. 45 “BBC News: Slovakia Media,” BBC News, 2008,
PhilMUN 2009
16
what they see fit rather than what the government wants released. Other states are confronted with the same problems, though there are varying types of media laws that have remained or been amended to provide varying degrees of media freedom. Some media laws are still quite antiquated and afford little rights to journalists, such as Russia’s Law on Fighting Extremist Activity, which expanded the definition of extremism to include media criticisms of public officials, and carries with it a punishment of up to three years imprisonment.46 Still other states have made an effort to amend old censorship laws and limit imprisonment or fines used as punishment. Romania, for example, has changed from its work-in-progress status to becoming increasingly more aware of the necessity of reforming press laws to be less harsh to media; as a result of decriminalizing defamation and similar offenses, journalists have been keener to work with the government in terms of handing over sensitive material such as army movements. For all the progression, however, journalists in Romania and other states still invite reprisal for political criticism through unfair firings and harsh scrutiny of private publications.47 Without the support of up-to-date laws that incorporate the modern day concerns of keeping journalists safe and maintaining democracy, press freedoms will continue to fall even in states struggling to break through Soviet-era barriers.
Insufficient Laws Protecting Members of the Press Similar to the issue of antiquated media laws enabling the government to censor and imprison press members, there is also the issue of a dearth in laws that directly protect journalists-- more specifically, their physical well-being. Currently, numerous laws have been introduced or instituted acknowledging a journalist’s right to protect
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/1108491.stm (accessed 20 November 2008) 46 “Freedom House Modules: Russia,” Freedom House, 2007, http://www.freedomhouse.org/modules/publications/pfs/modDisplayCountryDetail2.cfm?country=7258&year=2007 (accessed 20 November 2008) 47 “Freedom House Modules: Romania,” Freedom House, 2007, http://www.freedomhouse.org/modules/publications/pfs/modDisplayCountryDetail2.cfm?country=7257&year=2007 (accessed 20 November 2008)
PhilMUN 2009
17
sources and confidentiality48 as well as addressing journalists in war zones by labeling them civilians and therefore subject to civilian protections.49 Journalists in their everyday pursuits however remain unprotected. Often, the targeted assassinations or harassment specifically focused on journalists and members of the press are not even investigated, much less are the perpetrators caught. Russia in particular is a contentious area for journalists, the home of some highly-publicized deaths in the media world since the fighting with Chechnya. Anna Politkovskaya was only one Eastern European journalist of many who have been targeted by high-ranking officials in an effort to be silenced; though jail-time and threats are more common, murder has become an alarmingly common cause of death among members of the press in recent years, even for those who do not report in war-torn or high-conflict areas.50 No state laws shield these journalists from harm, nor does anything stop perpetrators from committing these crimes, as there is little legal follow-up once the crime is committed. The list of those who target journalists are also not only limited to government officials; mobsters, high-ranking public figures, or even disgruntled figures within the community who are mentioned in a news reports unfavorably are often quick to strike back against journalists.51 There are no legal standards currently instituted that account for any of the harmful fates that face a journalist in Eastern Europe--government or non-government backed, nor any laws that promise retribution for those who seek to harm journalists--the only unifying laws concerning press freedoms are those that exist currently in the UDHR, vague articles concerning human rights and not specifically journalists.52 Therefore, government officials and the public are not discouraged from bullying the media or using violence to accomplish their aims without fear of retribution. 48
“Protecting Journalistic Sources,” IFJ, 2007, http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/ks/exhibits/94/ifj-sources-handbook.pdf. (accessed 20 November 2008) 49 “Azerbaijan: War Reporters Learn About Laws Protecting Them,” ICRC, 2008, http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/azerbaijan-feature-250809 (accessed 20 November 2008) 50 “Anna Politkovskaya, Prominent Russian Journalist, Putin Critic and Human Rights Activist, Murdered in Moscow” (accessed 20 November 2008) 51 “Targeting and Tragedy,” IFJ,http://africa.ifj.org/assets/docs/124/137/6045e7c-6004389.PDF (accessed 20 November 2008) 52 Ibid.
PhilMUN 2009
18
Looking beyond the important element of protection from violence or outright harassment, once a journalist has been prosecuted--whether lawfully or unlawfully--for reporting unfavorable news, there are also no legal institutions in place to protect them during the actual court proceedings. Therefore, governments set up a structure where members of the press are subjected to losing their basic rights to live safely both as individuals and working members of society. By not implementing laws that decisively protect members of the press in the pursuit of the news, states are neglecting their responsibility to safeguard citizens and promoting further violence against journalists.
Inadequate Resources Makes Media Reliant on State One of the most prominent ways in which states exert their control over the increasing trend of privately-owned media interests in East Europe is by withholding vital resources that publications and broadcasters need to function. Broadcasting outside of major population centers, or in local and regional markets, ceases to function independently when revenue from advertisements is not received. In Eastern Europe, adequate funding is difficult to accrue for broadcasting outlets because states use their control to influence advertisers; without revenue, broadcasting centers cannot support their own costs, and must either fall under state control or cease production.53 Monetary and physical resources are necessary to the functions of broadcast journalism in particular, as sponsorship and advertisement money enables the outlets to remain independent. Without state support, outlets are able to retain objectivity and a free voice, but must support themselves, and without direct revenue from listeners, broadcasters must rely on the profits from their sponsoring and advertising companies. The importance of remaining independent is not to be taken lightly when regarding media in East Europe, where the hand Soviet influence is still a recent memory. Public media interests in many Eastern European states such as the Czech Republic have not reported any overt pressure from government officials, but have been condemned and 53
“Free and Independent Press,� Deliberating.org, http://www.deliberating.org/Lessons_Free_Press.pdf (accessed 20 November 2008)
PhilMUN 2009
19
criticized by members of parliament, actions which have influenced key editorial decisions made by members of the media. For this reason, media consolidation--or the grouping together of smaller interests into a larger presence--has strengthened media independence in some states, such as Estonia.54 With a larger pool of resources, media outlets do not need to look to the state for support, and can remain private and independently-run. Opponents, however, decry the lack of regional and local news sources once consolidation takes media to mass levels. In the current climate, in the face of more government control, the financial viability of smaller, independently-run outlets is quickly declining. In post-conflict regions like Bosnia-Herzegovina and other areas in the Balkans, reconstruction poses more problems for news outlets who are struggling to survive without a state presence. Without adequate funds for printing, circulation, or supporting journalists in the field, media outlets are left monetarily incapable. Due to the fact that much of the time state aid is conditional to more control, news outlets seek their own ways to distribute their print publications, which oftentimes commands more funds than the outlets have. The Open Broadcast Network is donor-run, and seeks to improve its broadcast range in order to widen its audience and increase financial support.55 In other states, such as Kazakhstan, governments influence the companies that provide resources for publications, and as a result, many publications have had to fold as a consequence of being dropped by their printing companies.56 Exorbitant fines are another form of financial harassment that many media outlets face at the hands of governments. Taken together, many of these cases illustrate a situation where resources are not made readily available to the press, and are kept out of reach in deliberate and illegal ways, creating a system of press freedoms being regularly infringed upon.
54
Ibid. “Bosnia-Herzegovina,“ Post-Soviet Media Law and Policy Newsletter, 1999, http://www.vii.org/monroe/issue56/bosnia.htm (accessed 20 November 2008) 56 “Press Freedom World Review,” WAN, http://www.wan-press.org/article8600.html (accessed 20 November 2008) 55
PhilMUN 2009
20
Projections and Implications The problem of a lack of press freedoms is at its core a problem of government corruption. As citizens receive news that is primarily state supportive through means that are primarily state run, populations run the risk of falling directly under the whims of an authoritarian government. Though Eastern Europe is widely seen as having undergone a democratic transformation, processes that stem press freedoms are inherently undemocratic, and counterproductive in the area of human rights. By denying populations their right to information, as well as denying journalists the objective pursuit and free dissemination of information, troubling precedents occur along with troubling consequences. Increasingly, states that demonstrate a lack of media freedom have a corresponding lack of free speech in general, breeding a culture where the state controls more and more aspects of society at large, and where economic, political, and social infrastructures break down as a result of public mistrust, misinformation, and heightened disorder. Economically, states that continue to exert control over media institutions also create standards of practice that enforce government corruption and shield unethical and economically-detrimental practices from the public eye. In many East European states, corrupt dealings and obscure connections are particular points of interest to journalists, and one way state officials reinforce and protect a system of economic corruption is to limit the powers of the press.57 Also, by withholding physical resources from the media, governments also further destroy the livelihoods of journalists and editors who rely on frequent circulation in order to keep their jobs. Politically, the consequences of limiting press freedoms are the same. The government that seeks to enforce their power does so by limiting press freedom, thereby guaranteeing that they are the only government officials in power for years to come. A system of corruption emerges and remains. Socially, ethnic tensions which already cause divisions among populations in Eastern Europe are often exacerbated by state-run media interests that are pushing agendas 57
“Into the Ether,� CPJ, 2008, http://cpj.org/reports/2008/11/into-the-ether.php (accessed 20 November 2008)
PhilMUN 2009
21
specific to the government officials who financially back them. Populations are also generally molded by the news that they consume; as such, states demonstrate an increasing limitation to the freedom of individual thought, and continue to take control of more processes that are publicly motivated, such as popular opinion and commercial interests. The murder and assault of journalists sends the message that honest perusal of news is dangerous, which shapes a society that lives in fear of its government.58 If press freedoms are not afforded, social, political, and economic standards will fall, leading to an overall decline for the state as a whole. The internet is also an integral point of interest when examining this problem, partially because in the modern age, new media has enjoyed resurgence among the new generation, and it remains one of the primary ways in which the world stays connected. Though still struggling to integrate newer entertainment technologies into everyday processes, states have quickly and efficiently zeroed in on the internet as a branch of media requiring regulation. This has long-reaching consequences in that regulating internet information has far-reaching influences, and indicates a restrictive approach that does not fade with time; instead, it only grows. If states continue to try and regulate the internet, then the globalization that has tied Eastern Europe to much of the rest of the world will halt, effectively halting other important processes of democracy as well. The overall affect of limiting press freedoms is especially dire in the current world climate because now more than ever it is important to understand the risks journalists take in order to inform the public of government action. Conflict--both intrastate and interstate--is an especially hostile environment for journalists, and without properly addressing of the issue, more journalists will die in war zones or reporting on situations within not-free states. Democracies are inextricably linked with basic freedoms such as freedom of speech, and should accordingly seek to uphold these freedoms. If they are unable to do so, the very spirit of democracy could morph into authoritarian rule, causing the fledgling and/or struggling states of East Europe in particular to employ increasingly 58
“Press Freedom in the News,� CPJ, http://cpj.org/blog/2008/11/press-freedom-in-the-news-112008.php (accessed
PhilMUN 2009
22
restrictive, unfair practices. Ultimately, an increase in death of innocent citizens (both media-linked and ordinary citizens who provide important information to journalists) and a breakdown of society can be expected should press freedoms not be respected.
20 November 2008)
PhilMUN 2009
23
Conclusion As of 2004, the former Soviet Union was almost overwhelmingly ranked as “Not Free,” according to the Freedom House Global Rankings of Free Press, and states in this region and the surrounding Central/Eastern European region have only seen an increase of “Not Free” rankings as the years have progressed. Government pressure, whether in the form of prosecution, detention, or withholding of resources, has dictated the actions of those in the pursuit of truth and cultivated an atmosphere of fear. Outright harassment in the form of violence--whether abuse or murder--have elevated the status of the problem. As it is a limitation on basic freedoms that every individual is afforded under the UDHR, the restriction on free press and the subsequent bullying of journalists and other actors who attempt to enforce free speech calls for an immediate examination of the problem by the UNHRC.
PhilMUN 2009
24
Discussion Questions • How do states successfully monitor the press without stifling basic freedoms? In other words, what constitutes as appropriate areas of state concern as opposed to areas where the state has no business acting? • Is it the responsibility of states to draft legislation that protects press members in particular, or should there be blanket laws protecting all members of civil society? How should a law distinguish between journalists and other civilians? • Should rights afforded along the lines of freedom of speech be broadly outlined such as in the UDHR or should they be specific to instances such as in the press? • What role should privacy laws and censorship laws still play within the framework of a new approach to press freedoms? How much power should be awarded to journalists to keep them within their rights but also keep order by state guidelines?
PhilMUN 2009
25
Works Cited Acton, Edward. Russia, The Tsarist and Soviet Legacy, Longmann Group Ltd: 1995. “Anna Politkovskaya, Prominent Russian Journalist, Putin Critic and Human Rights Activist, Murdered in Moscow” Democracy Now, 2006, http://www.democracynow.org/2006/10/9/anna_politkovskaya_prominent_russia_ journalist_putin (Accessed 19 October 2008) “Attacks on the Press: Central Asia and Europe,” CPJ, http://www.cpj.org/attacks05/europe05/russia_05.html (Accessed 19 October 2008) “Azerbaijan: War Reporters Learn About Laws Protecting Them,” ICRC, 2008, http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/azerbaijan-feature-250809 (Accessed 20 November 2008) Bauder, David. “Serb Government Orders Journalists Expelled,” Associated Press, 1999, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4179/is_/ai_n11713844 (Accessed 19 October 2008) “BBC News: Slovakia Media,” BBC News, 2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/1108491.stm (Accessed 20 November 2008) “Bosnia-Herzegovina,“ Post-Soviet Media Law and Policy Newsletter, 1999, http://www.vii.org/monroe/issue56/bosnia.htm (accessed 20 November 2008) Brosse de la, Renaud de la. "Political Propaganda and the Plan to Create 'A State For All Serbs: Consequences of Using Media for Ultra-Nationalist Ends," http://hague.bard.edu/reports/de_la_brosse_pt1.pdf, (Accessed 19 October 2008) “Détente is Not Around the Corner, Despite History,” Reporters Without Borders, http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=740 (Accessed 19 October 2008) “Free and Independent Press,” Deliberating.org, http://www.deliberating.org/Lessons_Free_Press.pdf (accessed 20 November 2008) “Freedom House Modules: Albania,” Freedom House, 2007, http://www.freedomhouse.org/modules/publications/pfs/modDisplayCountryDetai l2.cfm?country=6680&year=2007 (Accessed 20 November 2008)
PhilMUN 2009
26
“Freedom House Modules: Romania,” Freedom House, 2007, http://www.freedomhouse.org/modules/publications/pfs/modDisplayCountryDetai l2.cfm?country=7257&year=2007 (Accessed 20 November 2008) “Freedom House Modules: Russia,” Freedom House, 2007, http://www.freedomhouse.org/modules/publications/pfs/modDisplayCountryDetai l2.cfm?country=7258&year=2007 (Accessed 20 November 2008) Glendon, Mary Ann. A World Made New: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Random House Trade Paperbacks: June 2001. “Into the Ether,” CPJ, 2008, http://cpj.org/reports/2008/11/into-the-ether.php (Accessed 20 November 2008) “Journalist Assistance,” CJP.org http://www.cpj.org/campaigns/assistance/ (Accessed 20 November 2008) “Journalists Deaths Highest Since 1994,” UNESCO, 2007, http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.phpURL_ID=25863&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html (Accessed 19 October 2008) “Journalists Sound the Alarm on Press Freedom in Europe,” EurActive.com, 4 March 2008, http://www.euractiv.com/en/pa/journalists-sound-alarm-press-freedomeurope/article-170717 (Accessed 19 October 2008) “Map of Press Freedom,” Freedom House, 2007, http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=251&country=7084&year=200 6 (Accessed 19 October 2008) “NGOs Working on Press Freedoms,” Iraq Analysis, www.iraqanalysis.org/INFO/268 (Accessed 19 October 2008) “Press Freedoms in 2007,” Reporters Without Borders, 2007, http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=11715 (Accessed 19 October 2007) “Press Freedom in the News,” CPJ, http://cpj.org/blog/2008/11/press-freedom-in-thenews-112008.php (Accessed 20 November 2008) “Press Freedom and Philanthropy,” Mail and Guardian Online, http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/shelaghgastrow/2008/07/08/press-freedom-andphilanthropy/ (Accessed 19 October 2008)
PhilMUN 2009
27
“Press Freedom World Review,” WAN, http://www.wan-press.org/article8600.html (Accessed 20 November 2008) “Protecting Journalistic Sources,” IFJ, 2007, http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/ks/exhibits/94/ifj-sources-handbook.pdf. (Accessed 20 November 2008) “Reporters Without Borders: Press Freedoms Day by Day,” Reporters Without Borders, http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=29031 (Accessed 19 October 2008) Stein, M.L "Free Press Still Rare in Eastern Europe." Editor & Publisher 127, no. 18 (30 April, 1994): 16. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, (Accessed 19 October 2008) “Targeting and Tragedy,” IFJ, http://africa.ifj.org/assets/docs/124/137/6045e7c6004389.PDF (Accessed 20 November 2008) “UDHR: History of Human Rights,” UDHR, http://www.universalrights.net/main/creation.htm (Accessed 19 October 2008) “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” UDHR, http://www.universalrights.net/main/declarat.htm, (Accessed 19 October 2008.) “Uzbekistan Blocks Newsuz.com,” Global Voices Advocacy, 2008, http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2008/02/21/uzbekistan-blocksnewsuzcom-website/ (Accessed 19 October 2008) “Yugoslav Army’s Central Intelligence Unit: Clandestine Operations” Coalition for International Justice, 2002, http://www.borrull.org/e/noticia.php?id=11236 (Accessed 19 October 2008)