Peter de Haan

CENSORSHIP ALERT

Censorship in Economics

Eva Tas Foundation | Amsterdam

Foreword

The content of this essay, part of our Foundation’s Censorship series, suggests that one should worry about censorship. And – indeed – one should, as censorship is increasing in the world. Literally every day there are reports in the media about journalists, bloggers, writers, and their publishers being harassed, detained, expelled, or even killed.

There are several reasons that explain why increasing numbers of journalists, bloggers, and writers aren’t able to publish their work as they please. Governments play an important part in limiting or even ending freedom of expression. Censorship is being tightened through laws that are enacted to smother the freedom of media, acting as a perverse means to protect the political and economic interests of those in power.

But government is not the only actor that makes the professional lives of journalists, bloggers, and writers difficult. Economic interests also impinge upon freedom of expression: rich media tycoons with strong political connections make sure that only ‘depoliticized’ news is being published that serves their and those of their political friends. Religious fanatics, including al-Qaeda and Islamic State extremists, attempt to undermine freedom of expression, as demonstrated by the brutal killing of Charlie Hebdo’s editors and cartoonists last year in Paris.

There is also the tendency to apply more and more self-censorship, triggered by the fear of losing one’s job, being harassed, or of being blamed for not reporting in a politically correct fashion.

While most publications about censorship zoom in on political, ethical, and human rights aspects, this essay is also about the relationship between censorship and economic development. The author analysed how notorious ‘censorship countries’ fared in economic terms during the past three decades. He investigated whether censorship negatively affects the economic performance of countries. In other words, do ‘censorship countries’ score poorly in terms of economic development? They do, and this should alert not only those involved in defending freedom of expression but also those involved in development aid.

This essay ends as follows: ‘Given the current growing threats to freedom, it is essential that all organisations dedicated to defending freedom of expression and freedom of the media must be heard loud and clear. They must strive for full cooperation with each other to enhance their impact in every country where censorship is a common phenomenon’.

The Eva Tas Foundation is prepared to take up the challenge and play its part. We will take initiatives – such as the promotion of seminars – to join hands with like-minded organisations in response to the censorship alert, as elaborated in this essay.

Rudolf Geel

Chairman Eva Tas Foundation

Introduction

This essay is written for all those who take an interest in freedom of expression and in the freedom of media in particular. It is a call to action since these freedoms, as Eva Tas Foundation’s chairman noted, are increasingly under threat.

The first chapter describes the downward trend in freedom of the press and includes examples of censorship and what it affected the victims.

Chapter II is about censorship and economic development and how the two phenomena are connected. This chapter also highlights what economists, writers, and philosophers say about growth and development, as well as the positive role played by culture and literature in a society’s development.

Chapter III provides a fairly comprehensive overview of organisations involved in the defence of freedom of expression and freedom of the media. It is particularly helpful for journalists, bloggers, and writers who are under threat or need help. The central message of this chapter is that there are organisations out there that can help. In addition, it is a useful overview for those who want to take action against censorship, but do want to do so together with others.

Chapter IV draws some conclusions and ends with a call for collective action.

Annexe I includes Freedom House’s methodology. Annexe II presents the dot plots and the statistical details of the regression analyses as presented in Chapter II.

A bibliography and a list of the foundation’s censorship publications are provided at the end of this booklet.

Acknowledgements

I am indebted to Dr. Marein van Schaaijk, Director of Micro-Macro Consultants, who agreed to have the regression analyses undertaken by his junior partner, Sibren Vegter, who did a sterling job.

The inspiring discussion with Sophie Leferink of HIVOS, a Dutch funding organisation, helped me a lot in conceptualising this essay.

Simone Whittemore improved my English to the extent that – I hope and trust – it can’t be distinguished from a text written by a native speaker.

The many high-flying discussions I had with Eva Tas Foundation Board member Jan Honout, gave me much advice and inspiration, in particular in the elaboration of the economic development dimension of censorship. My thanks to him are, therefore, heartfelt indeed.

This also goes for the Board of the Eva Tas Foundation who gave me the opportunity and the trust to write this essay.

Peter de Haan

December 2015

Chapter I

Censorship trends over the period 2006-2015

‘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 regardless of frontiers’.

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), cited above, commits all states to everyone’s right of freedom of expression. But do the countries that signed up to the Declaration live up to its contents? The answer is that some do, but an increasing number of countries don’t. This chapter describes trends and the fate of censorship’s prime victims.

_ 2006

Trends

Freedom House’s Global Press Freedom Report 2007 noted that the state of global press freedom declined in 2006, with worrisome trends in Asia, the former Soviet Union, and Latin America. Surely, there were improvements in some countries, but these were eclipsed by the worsening situation in others.

Of 195 countries and territories assessed, 74 countries were rated ‘Free’, 58 were rated ‘Partly Free’, and 63 were rated ‘Not Free’. Only 18% of the world’s population lived in countries that enjoyed a free press.¹ The decline in media freedom was the more regrettable as media freedom had made gains during the 1980s and early 1990s. This inspiring development, however, stalled when, during the second half of the 1990s a decade of media stagnation ensued in line with a pattern of stagnation in political freedom.

Causes

The Global Press Freedom Report 2007 identified four main causes for the worsening media environment worldwide. The reversal of political freedom in e.g., Russia, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe, was responsible for cracking down on the media. Political upheaval in the form of coups and states of emergency was a second cause. The media in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Thailand, and Fiji all suffered setbacks.

The third cause for this worsening trend was the increase in violence against journalists. Who doesn’t remember the assassination of Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya in 2006? ² But she wasn’t the only one. Mexican and Columbian reporters were killed by drug gangs. And in Iraq, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and the Philippines journalists were killed for doing their job.

Cause number four involved the application of laws prohibiting blasphemy, hate speech, and endangering the national security. These laws used to be applied by Middle Eastern governments in particular, but gained popularity, so to speak, in some Asian, African, and former Soviet Union countries as well. The 2007 report specifically mentioned Turkey where 293 writers and journalists were persecuted under Article 301 of Turkey’s revised penal code, which prohibits denigrating ‘Turkishness’.

Positive developments

There were not only negative trends; on the positive side, Italy regained its ‘Free’ status after the exit of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. Colombia, Haiti, Indonesia, Macedonia, and Nepal improved their scores as well. Press freedom scores of quite a few Sub-Saharan African countries – such as Angola, the Central African Republic, Cape Verde, Mozambique, and Sudan – also improved.

Worst of the worst

In 2006 according to Freedom House the Worst of the worst-rated countries were: Burma, Cuba, Libya, North Korea, and Turkmenistan, followed by Belarus, Uzbekistan, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, and Zimbabwe. ³

The Internet

The Global Press Freedom Report 2007 paid special attention to the restrictions on the Internet:

The internet has emerged as one of the most potent weapons against censorship and lack of transparency in authoritarian societies. Even in China and Iran, where the authorities have devoted significant resources to the control of internet content, internet-based outlets have remained a vital source of news about social upheaval, labor disputes, official corruption, and acts of state abuse against the citizenry. ⁴

China, Vietnam, and Iran all controlled access to the Internet. These countries imprisoned journalists and ‘cyber dissidents’ who filed unwelcome reports. Ethiopia, and The Gambia imposed controls on bloggers and websites, despite low levels of internet penetration in them.

_ 2015

In 2006 the trend in media freedom compared unfavorably with the early 1990s, but it became worse after that year. This may well have coincided with the slowing down – if not reversal – of the democratisation process throughout the world, as explained in chapter II.

The 2015 Global Press Freedom Report observed that conditions for the media had deteriorated sharply. Journalists around the world faced mounting restrictions on the free flow of news and information. Some feared for their lives and fled their countries, others were killed. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) reported an increasing trend in journalists being killed since the beginning of the 21st century. Terrorists and criminal elements kidnapped, and in some cases even murdered, journalists who tried to report on armed conflicts. A sad and brutal reminder: freelance journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff were beheaded by IS-militants in 2014.

Source: Global Press Freedom Report 2015

Of the 1,135 journalists killed since 1992 by CPJ’s count, 36% died during armed conflict, while 44% covered politics. Another 20% were investigating corruption, 18% worked on human rights abuses, and 15% on crime. ⁵ This sobering number did not include the 93 media workers who lost their lives as well. Under the heading ‘motive unconfirmed’ another 436 journalists and media workers were included in CPJ’s list. ⁶

Regarding the armed conflict in Syria, Emma Daly, Director Communications of Human Rights Watch, wrote in Why we need journalism, how the war in Syria makes independent journalism near impossible and how literally killing it is for journalists, including citizen journalists, to report from there.

Since World Press Freedom Day in 2013, at least 60 journalists have been killed because of their work, with Syria and Iraq as the most dangerous places. Of course Syrian journalists are at greatest risk– including the many “citizen journalists” and activists working to get information out about the fighting. International reporters have shown themselves willing to take the risks normally associated with covering conflict, but the very direct threats of kidnap have prompted many news organizations to reduce or end coverage inside Syria. In December, more than a dozen international media companies wrote to the Supreme Military Council (SMC) of the opposition Free Syrian Army about the “increasingly common risk of abduction.” Because of the increased threat, they wrote, many outlets “have decided to limit their coverage of the war.” In response, the SMC promised to protect and support journalists, but said that most potential kidnappers were outside their control. Media workers, including citizen journalists, are also being targeted by government forces and pro-government militias. Many have been arrested and detained arbitrarily, tortured or disappeared. More than 50 journalists have been killed during the three years of conflict because of their work, and at least 70 experienced Syrian journalists are reported to have fled the country. ⁷

Trend

The Global Press Freedom Report 2015 underscored that in 2014 global press freedom dropped to its lowest point in more than a decade. Worse, the decline accelerated dramatically, with the global average score suffering its largest one-year decline in ten years.

In 2014 there were 63 countries enjoying a free press. That is 14% in terms of the world’s population; the equivalent of one in seven people. The percentage of those enjoying a ‘Free’ media in 2014 was at its lowest level since 1996 when Freedom House (FH) started incorporating population figures. Three times more people (42% of the world’s population) lived in 71 ‘Partly Free’ countries. And 44% of the world’s population lived in 65 ‘Not Free’ countries or territories.

The 2015 report concluded that all regions – except Sub-Saharan Africa whose average score improved slightly – experienced declines of varying degrees, with the Middle East and North Africa showing the largest net decline.

Causes

The report presented two factors for the decline: (i) the passage and use of restrictive laws against the press (often on national security grounds) to protect the interests of the power holders; and, (ii) the inability of local and foreign journalists to access and report freely from a given country.

The report rightly noted that – paradoxically – in a time of almost unlimited access to information, and new methods of content delivery, more and more areas of the world are becoming virtually inaccessible, such as China’s Tibet and Xinjiang regions, Russian-occupied Crimea, and ethnic minority areas in Myanmar. IS-affiliated Boko Haram-controlled areas in Nigeria and the Sinaï peninsula were off-limits for journalists as well.

FH also reported that access to the internet declined in 2014. China is censoring the internet most of all countries, followed by Syria and Iran. Almost half of all internet users live in countries where people have been harassed or even killed for using the internet.

Examples

In Latin American countries, such as Mexico and Honduras (as described in the box below), violence against journalists soared in 2104. Local governments and gangs successfully blocked reporting on drugs-related crime and corruption. According to Mexican journalist Carmen Aristegui, colleagues of her working in the provinces encounter great difficulties reporting the facts about shady activities of drug cartels. Since 2000 89 journalists have been killed in Mexico. These journalists didn’t enjoy the international protection Ms. Aristegui enjoys. ⁸

‘However, at the same time, the state has armed itself with its apparatus of repression to subdue them and to protect the interests of economic groups. Everything functions in a coordinated way. This elite has at its disposal most of the media which distorts information and makes it appear that the elite is working for the public good. The justice system is no different and acts to protect those interests through the criminalization of social movements, journalists and other sectors of the population. The truth about all this remains kidnapped in the newsroom. The public does not have access to information and that gives more power to this elite that not only uses censorship but also kills those who are vocal in their criticism’.

From: Kidnapped, by Dina Meza. Amsterdam: Eva Tas Foundation (2015).

Citizen journalists and ordinary citizens managed to send some information out about the conditions in these regions, but this is not the same as professional reporting by seasoned journalists.

‘On January 17, authorities arrested Solomon Kebede, columnist and managing editor of Muslim Affairs. They charged him along with 27 other Muslims in April under the anti-terrorist proclamation…. Basically, prosecutors use documents of government criticism as evidence against journalists, bloggers, and dissenting politicians. Several opposition political leaders (mainly young politicians), are also imprisoned accused of or charged with terrorism and other grave crimes. Almost all journalists, bloggers, and politicians mentioned above are victims of the Anti-Terrorism Law of the country. The charges are indicative of the Ethiopian government’s way of misusing this law to smother free speech and the functioning of free media’.

From: Censorship is the Genocide of Thought, by exiled Ethiopian journalist Bisrat Woldemichael Handiso. Amsterdam: Eva Tas Foundation (2015).

Other countries cracked down on freedom of expression and the media as well. ⁹ Thailand’s military rulers suspended the constitution and imposed martial law while shutting down media outlets. Turkey’s intelligence organisation exerted its surveillance of almost all information held by any entity in the country.

The Russian legislature passed a law allowing the authorities to apply new controls on blogs and social media. Azerbaijan detained nine journalists under the guise of security or emergency laws; some media advocacy groups there were forced to fold as well.

On 28 May 2013 police knocked on Tomislav Kezharovski’s door, founder of the independent Macedonian magazine Reporter 92. He was sentenced to four –and-a-half years imprisonment for writing the truth about what is happening in Macedonia. Thanks to widespread international protests he was released after two years. This is what he wrote about his motives to start Reporter 92:

It was to be a publication where I would criticize all that was not right, where mistakes would be pointed out and where no one would be spared. I wanted to create something of value, of substance. I believed I could; I believed that I would succeed…. Not even in my wildest dreams could I imagine the attacks over my body and work. I’ve had to face the cruel truth, the fact that I can never again live a normal life in Macedonia’. ¹⁰

South African authorities expanded their National Key Points Act (a relic from the Apartheid era) to prevent investigative journalists from reporting on important sites or institutions. The Economist reported in its 27th June 2015 issue that President Zuma had urged all media to be more ‘patriotic’, while his government uses taxpayers’ money to bolster private media that sing the ruling party’s praises. A senior manager at the South African Broadcasting Corporation had reportedly demanded a 70% ‘happy news’ quota.

In Egypt, three Al-Jazeera journalists were sentenced to three years in prison for allegedly conspiring with the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood to broadcast false reports. The good news is that Ahmed Mansoor, another Al -Jazeera journalist convicted in absentia by the Egyptian judiciary, had travelled to Germany where he was erroneously arrested by the German police. However, after having realized their mistake, the German authorities set him free.

Saudi Arabia intends to continue the lashing of Saudi blogger Raif Badawi, once the Supreme Court has decided on his case. Badawi had already received 50 lashings pending the verdict. Badawi established the website Saudi Liberal Network in 2012. He was awarded the 2015 European Parliament’s Sacharov Prize. Amnesty International posted a full-page advertisement in newspapers to draw attention to the case. The most recent PEN International Congress held in Montreal, Canada, paid due attention to his case as well.