Interview with the OSCE representative of Freedom of the Media, Dunja Mijatović
Allergic to balance
At the OSCE Summit, the participating States affirmed the importance of free media for ensuring “full respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms, democracy, including free and fair elections and the rule of law.” Dunja Mijatović, who has been OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media since March 2010, spoke with Frane Maroević, Deputy Spokesperson of the OSCE about her first year and challenges facing journalists in the OSCE area.
It is unacceptable that in the OSCE region and in the twenty-first century, we call ourselves an international club of democracies but still put people behind bars or in prison for their written or spoken words.
Frane Maroević: Most people are aware of your work through public statements, but these are only part of what you do. How do you help to promote media freedom in OSCE participating States?
Dunja Mijatović: My core mandate is to assist the participating States in fulfilling the commitments to media freedom they voluntarily made. When I see shortcomings, I point them out to the delegations in Vienna and directly to the governments. I also commission independent legal analyses, which provide clear recommendations to the governments on how to improve their legislation.
I always try to use quiet diplomacy. But if it does not work, the only other option I have is to raise my voice. Public statements are often a last resort, but when matters are urgent, for example, if journalists are killed or imprisoned because of their work, there is no reason to remain silent. In such a case, I am in direct contact with the respective government. It is important for the government to recognize the wrongdoing and to condemn it publically, so that society is aware that it is working to solve the problem.
Physical threats against journalists and media representatives are unfortunately still commonplace, but not the only threats to free media. In what other ways can media freedom be limited?
There are unfortunately many clever and at the same time dangerous ways of imposing restrictions on the media. One of the most common is creating laws that are vague and give too much power to regulatory authorities. I believe print media should not be subject to any regulation, except that which is doled out fairly by civil courts free from political manipulation.
Censorship is another area of enormous concern. I receive news daily of attempts to undermine media freedom, not only in emerging democracies but also in countries that are considered havens of free media.
There are also positive moves by governments that are listening to and applying the recommendations of this Office. Coming from a country in transition, I have full respect and understanding for the fact that some governments are working under difficult conditions. But a difficult political environment is no excuse for not moving forward, not trying hard to make society freer. There can be no security without a free flow of information and free media.
How do you try to achieve a balance in your work to ensure that all OSCE States are scrutinized?
I am allergic to balance. During my last report to the OSCE Permanent Council, I said that I objected to calls for a more balanced approach in my work. Of course, I need to be fair and impartial. But what does it mean to be balanced? When a journalist is killed in one country, do I have to look for one killed in another country in order to be balanced? If I say that a law in one country is not good, do I have to search for another country with a similar problem? That’s not how I do my job. I point my finger at the problem.
I perceive it as a sign of strength that 56 participating States have not only agreed to uphold media freedom commitments but have also created an instrument to remind themselves of their obligations. However, just having an Office is far from enough. My interventions aim to support reform and to bring national legislation and practices in line with commitments. Their implementation, however, largely remains the responsibility of the participating States.
Do journalists also have a responsibility for ensuring media freedom?
Of course. Professional journalism is a prerequisite for a healthy media environment. Freedom of expression is a right that is hard to acquire, easy to lose and a struggle to maintain, because it touches on competing rights such as individual privacy and is challenged by dogmas, taboos, cultural traditions and also competing security interests.
I often hear that we should teach journalists how to do their jobs. I have openly and frankly explained every time that I do not think governments should be telling journalists what to do. We can help governments to draft laws that facilitate media regulation, self-regulatory bodies and press councils, to create a good legal and regulatory framework for fostering media freedom. This Office works with the OSCE field operations to promote professional journalism, self-regulation and good media laws. I am considering preparing a checklist for the participating States, asking for example: Do you have a law on free access to information? Have you decriminalized defamation? But it is not the role of this Office to teach journalists; we are not a school of journalism.
How helpful is it that the 56 participating States confirmed their strong support for your mandate at the Astana Summit and that the 2011 Lithuanian Chairmanship has made media freedom and safety of journalists a priority?
I am very pleased that the Lithuanian Chairmanship has given priority to media freedom and safety of journalists. This is already a very busy and demanding year – threats to free media still abound in too many of our participating States. The Chairmanship’s focus will allows me to do more to assist the OSCE participating States in fulfilling their commitments. As always I will continue working with the delegations here in Vienna and the governments to point out what I see as burning problems.
I am grateful that the Chairmanship has decided to focus so specifically on the issue of violence against journalists. Indeed, The Chairmanship has organized a two-day conference dedicated to the safety of journalists in the OSCE region to be held in early June in Vilnius. I hope the conference highlight the need for urgent action to improve the environment for journalists.
As to the Summit, the Astana Commemorative Declaration is a strong political document and, in my view, a call to action for the participating States to complete their still unfinished work, to achieve the goals they have proclaimed during the past 35 years. Throughout the declaration, the message rings clear: commitment to and respect for fundamental freedoms guides this Organization today and into the future. The document’s strong emphasis on media freedom gives me additional momentum to continue my work. It should also give additional courage to all journalists throughout OSCE area.
What else are you working on?
There are problems throughout the region with protection of sources, access to information and, a most important topic, decriminalization of defamation. I am going to raise this matter constantly, and I plan to increase co-operation with the Council of Europe in this regard. It is absolutely unacceptable that, of the 56 OSCE participating States, only 11 have decriminalized defamation. It is true that many countries, adhering to the European Court of Human Rights decisions that ban criminal libel convictions, do not, in practice, enforce criminal libel laws. But that is no excuse for not taking the steps necessary to wipe these arcane laws off their books.
Why should defamation be decriminalized?
In modern democracies, jail is for serious crimes, not for expressing an opinion on politics or a public figure. It is the media’s duty to foster public debate. Libel is a matter best left to civil courts. Libel should never be used to silence media, not through criminalisation nor high fines in civil cases.
No one is saying that information and freedom of expression should be without limitations. But these are clearly defined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 19 of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights. All OSCE participating States have signed one or both.
The Internet has blurred the distinction between different media; print versus electronic, local versus international, established versus new. How is this reflected in your work?
The world is undergoing momentous changes through the forces of globalization and the emergence of new technologies. Today, we get more and more of our information online. However, when it comes to safety of journalists, to the old problem of attacks on people who have different views, who are critical, who use satire or provocative language, the playing field has not changed. Journalists are threatened regardless of whether they work online or in traditional media.
Internet freedom and access to the Internet is something to which I am very dedicated. Last year we developed a comprehensive survey to assess the degree to which the Internet is regulated, deregulated or co-regulated across the OSCE region. We have received answers from many of the participating States and will have a final report soon. Other international organizations have also expressed interest in using this matrix, and we are most willing to share this model so that it can be used for measuring Internet freedom worldwide.
No one is questioning the legitimate right of a government to tackle the threats of cyber attacks. But we do observe that some governments block websites they consider uncomfortable and regulate the Internet on the pretext of national security or the fight against terrorism. As I stated at the beginning of my term in Office, attempts to suppress, restrict or block websites are a lost battle. Blocking just creates problems. Society is threatened and people live in fear because they cannot share their views.
From a media freedom perspective, what is the difference between a blogger and a journalist, a website manager and a newspaper publisher? Do they deserve the same protection?
Every person whose freedom of expression is restricted deserves this Office’s protection. If bloggers are put in prison because of their blogs, I do not ask myself whether or not they are journalists. Today, with the emergence of citizen journalism, this whole area is fluid. If someone is put in prison simply because they post a satirical video clip, of course it’s a matter for this Office.
Is Wikileaks a matter for your Office?
I have a slightly different view of Wikileaks as a media-freedom issue. Wikileaks is an information platform that contains an enormous amount of data. Whether this data is legally or illegally obtained is not a question for my Office. But as far as media freedom is concerned – and I limit myself to that – everything on and about Wikileaks is being discussed and written about freely, and I therefore currently do not see a need for this Office to intervene.
There are several angles I have already raised as problematic. I have condemned statements by some politicians calling for the “execution” of Wikileaks’ founder. Also, there is the important, yet little discussed, issue of security in the handling of secret documents. There are legitimate reasons why certain documents are secret and practice has developed in rule of law states on this: how secrecy is decided (always set out in law and proportional). It is thus not a problem for freedom of expression that not all information is in the public domain and each case of leaking secret information must be considered on its merits.
The responsibility for safeguarding classified documents resides with those who have an obligation to do so – civil servants, government employees and politicians. The persons obtaining leaked information can not per se be held accountable for not respecting classification rules. In journalism, a vital test for the legitimacy of revealing leaked information to the wider public is the question of whether or not it is in the public interest. In my December 2010 report to the Permanent Council, I appealed to participating States to act and to react to the developments surrounding Wikileaks with these considerations in mind.
These are the core issues. If I observe indications that media freedom is being threatened or someone’s creative work is being suppressed, I will of course raise this publicly.
More than a year has passed since you were selected by the 56 OSCE participating States to help them promote free and independent media. What has been the most difficult situation you have faced?
There are many. It is disappointing to see governments trying to silence critical voices – people who try to point out problems or simply have different views. These people are harassed, intimidated, interrogated, put in prison and have their equipment seized. Even fearing for their lives or the lives of their families, they continue to do an enormously important job. On many occasions, I have had to talk to people in confidence because of this fear. In too many countries, it is not easy to be a journalist. Safety of journalists is an issue I will continue raising as long as I do this job, because it is unacceptable that in the OSCE region and in the twenty-first century, we call ourselves an international club of democracies but still put people in prison for their written or spoken words.
What have been the highlights and achievements of your first year?
It has been fascinating to meet people and to gain a deeper understanding of the region and of the specific problems that its people and the countries are facing. I have excellent support from civil society, OSCE delegations and governments. Active involvement by the governments has been at the core of our achievements. It is amazing when you realize that jointly you have managed to make positive steps. I was very pleased when journalist and blogger Eynulla Fatullayev was released from an Azerbaijani prison last month, as I was earlier this year when Adnan Hacizade and Emin Milli were released. These are steps forward. I believe it is important for me to continue to fight for the rights of individual journalists, as well as the profession as a whole. I am hopeful that these men can now return to their important work.