Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,
[Klikk, klikk with a pen] In many places, this sound – or even worse the click of a camera – can be as dangerous as the sound of a gunshot.
In many situations, picking up your pen or shooting a film can entail as great a risk as shooting an actual weapon. Speaking the truth in the face of power is dangerous. It is dangerous for those in power, it is dangerous for journalists, and it can be dangerous for the people interviewed.
Dear friends,
It is with great regret that I note that the struggle for freedom of speech is no less urgent and no less dangerous today than it was two years ago, when the Global Inter-Media Dialogue was initiated. Last year, 86 journalists and 20 other media workers were killed. This is a dramatic increase compared with five years ago, and the highest figure since 1994. A total of 1511 media professionals were physically attacked, and 67 were kidnapped, according to Reporters Without Borders.
The figures also show that armed conflict is by far the greatest threat to the security of media professionals. Over half of the journalists killed last year died in Iraq, and the vast majority of them worked for local media. The situation is also serious in Somalia, Sri Lanka, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Afghanistan.
One of the most recent examples from the fight for freedom of speech came last month. A reporter from the New York Times was arrested in Zimbabwe for “committing journalism”. The charge against him was that he had been “gathering, processing and disseminating news”. Yet as an international reporter, he was safer than many local journalists. He was released after a couple of days – and the ten page article on the election was posted at the top of the online version of the NYT. Unfortunately, unknown numbers of local journalists suffer the same fate or worse without making the news at all, much less the headlines.
But reporters do not have to be working in a war zone to be at risk. Mexican investigative journalist Lydia Cacho, this year’s UNESCO World Press Freedom Prize laureate, has been the target of death threats, sabotage, libel suits and police harassment because of her work uncovering prostitution and child pornography rings.
Unfortunately the investigation of physical attacks on media workers rarely ends in prosecution or arrest. It is vital that the perpetrators of such crimes are caught and brought to justice. This year, the trial of the suspected killers of the editor Hrant Dink in Turkey will be very important. A proper trial will not only affect the future of journalists in Turkey, but could also serve as an example to other countries where journalists are being threatened.
Threatening the people journalists talk to, rather than the journalists themselves, is a more indirect and subtle, but nevertheless effective way of suppressing freedom of speech. In some places, journalists are surrounded by what can best be described as a “ring of fire”, and anyone speaking to or interviewed by them risks being “burnt” whether by government or powerful non-state actors. Freedom of speech is therefore more than the rights of media workers to security. It is a fundamental right that should be enjoyed by everyone.
Threats to journalists are not only dangerous for the journalists themselves; they are a danger to society as a whole – at local level, at national level, and ultimately at international level. Because silencing journalists strangles the flow of information. Lack of information breeds ignorance. Ignorance creates misunderstanding and mistrust. And mistrust, as we know, breeds conflict.
Albert Camus once wrote: “The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence [ill will], if they lack understanding”. Good journalism helps us understand. It can help us understand conflicts – both near and afar. And good journalism can help us understand precisely which conflicts really are far away and which are closer than they seem. Indeed they can help us understand which conflicts we are part of ourselves and which we are not. Because sometimes we are not even aware that we are part of a wider conflict. But local actions have global effects, as illustrated by the cartoon controversy, climate change and increasing food prices.
Thus, ladies and gentlemen, I hope the Global Inter-Media Dialogue will continue to challenge the ideas we have of “us” and “them”, and seek to ensure that they are never become set in stone.
By far the most important test case for freedom of speech this year will be the Olympics in Beijing. The international community has a responsibility to react when human rights and press freedoms are violated, wherever the violations take place. But a regime with consistent and unwavering respect for human rights cannot be imposed by external forces (states or individuals). Ultimately, freedom of speech and human rights can only be imported – they cannot be exported. While outsiders have a responsibility to assist, and when possible exert pressure, domestic actors have to be the driving force in establishing a regime that respects human rights. We must therefore take care not to weaken the domestic demand for freedom of speech and human rights by alienating the country as a whole. There is no greater threat to constructive internal dissent than a common external enemy. This is why Norway does not advocate boycotting the Olympics. Press freedom will not be advanced through a shouting contest, but through dialogue. What is at stake here is not only the press freedom of thousands of international journalist for a couple of weeks in August this year, but the positive effect the Olympics could have on China’s relations with the rest of the world for years to come. These relations will fundamentally affect our ability to continue a constructive dialogue that can help to improve the lives of no less than of 1.4 billion Chinese citizens.
Last week, 100 days before the event, many of you present here today started the countdown with the slogan “One dream: Free Expression in China”. I share your dream.
Friends,
As a politician I have to admit that there are times, at the end of a hard day’s work, when I wish the journalists would stop asking their incessantly probing and difficult questions. The questions they ask are tough, they are difficult, and yes at times they are potentially dangerous – especially when they focus on mistakes I have made or might have made. We need to institutionalise free speech at both international and national level – to prevent people in my position succumbing to the temptation of trying to escape journalists’ questions.
And so the question we should ask is simple, yet challenging: What can be done to strengthen freedom of expression and, in particular, free and independent media?
Today I pledge that Norway will intensify its efforts – and seek to be more strategic in promoting freedom of expression.
First, we pledge to intensify our response to threats against and harassment of journalists. When journalists are killed while performing their work, we will use all possible channels to ensure that impunity does not prevail. This requires closer cooperation with both Norwegian and international press organisations. We are already sponsoring media projects in the Middle East and in East Africa. In Afghanistan we sponsor the writers’ house in Kabul. In Russia the Norwegian Union of Journalists assists in union building among journalists with our support. We will support the Global Investigative Journalism Conference 2008 in Norway in September. And in June 2009, the Freedom of Expression Foundation, Oslo, Norwegian PEN and the International Freedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX) will arrange a global freedom of expression event in Oslo. We are proud to be one of the sponsors.
Second, we will increase Norwegian funding for freedom of expression and independent media efforts by NOK 15 million (aboute USD 3 million). These new funds will be used to boost freedom of expression and independent media in countries in conflict and countries where journalists are under pressure. Again we will be working closely with independent media organisations and freedom of expression organisations.
Third, we will seek appropriate ways of lifting this issue higher up on the international agenda, in the wide range of multilateral organisations. We will do so together with countries that share our approach.
International relations are increasingly being shaped by people shortcutting their governments and establishing direct contact with people in other countries. This is undoubtedly a positive development. We all want the people of our country to be in contact with people from other countries. But we should not be naïve; contact can sometimes lead to conflict. The challenge is how to address such conflicts – like the cartoon controversy – that are not primarily intergovernmental in nature. We have had centuries to develop international institutions where governments can meet to resolve conflicts with other governments. But these intergovernmental institutions are not always well equipped to deal with conflicts between civil society actors in different countries. (Indeed, during the cartoon controversy, many western governments explicitly stated that they did not want to involve themselves in what newspapers published). The conflict we saw emerge during this controversy is a different kind of conflict, and requires a different kind of dialogue. The Global Inter-Media Dialogue represents one way to institutionalise this kind of dialogue, so next time a conflict like this arises, we will hopefully not be caught off-guard. For new controversies will surely arise, and we will have plenty of issues to disagree over. But at least we will have networks and greater awareness and understanding to help us when discussing our disagreements, and to prevent conflicts from escalating out of control.
To quote Maradonna, the famous philosopher, or maybe not so wellknown as philosopher, when asked what makes a great football-player. “The important is to not run where the ball is. I run where the ball is going to be.”
Journalists in a troubled world, thank you for doing this important work together. This year the Dialogue focuses on Ethical Journalism in Extreme Conditions: The Challenge of Diversity. On behalf of the Indonesian and Norwegian authorities, I extend to you our heartfelt welcome to the third Global Inter-Media Dialogue.