ipi 2002 congress report slovenia - ljubljana slovenia · ipi 2002 congress report slovenia -...

75
IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 1 LJUBLJANA SLOVENIA IPI WORLD CONGRESS and 51 st GENERAL ASSEMBLY IPI Congress Report 2002

Upload: others

Post on 27-Dec-2019

9 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r t S l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a 1

LJU

BLJA

NA

SLO

VEN

IA

IPI WORLDCONGRESS

and51st GENERAL

ASSEMBLY

IPICongressReport

2002

Page 2: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

HOST COMMITTEEChairman:Mitja Mer{ol, Editor-in-Chief, Delo,Ljubljana

Executive Vice Chairman:Boris Bergant, Deputy Director-General,RTV Slovenija, Ljubljana

Advisory Board:Jure ApihSandra Ba{i~ HrvatinBranko BergantBoris CekovJirka CvetkoTadej LabernikJanez PergarKristina Plav{akDu{an SnojAleks [takulBarbara Verdnik

Secretary:Karmen Kova~i~

IPIChairmen:Hugo Bütler (2000-2002), Editor-in-Chief,Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Zurich

Jorge E. Fascetto (2002-2004), Chairmanof the Board, Diario El Dia, La Plata,Argentina

Director:Johann P. Fritz

Congress Coordinator and Editor, IPI Congress ReportMichael Kudlak

Assistant Congress Coordinator:Christiane Klint

Congress Transcripts:Ruth DaviesVerity Wood

International Press Institute (IPI)Spiegelgasse 2/29A-1010 ViennaAustriaTel: + 43 1 - 512 90 11Fax: + 43 1 - 512 90 14E-mail: [email protected]://www.freemedia.at

IPI CONGRESS REPORT2 Contents

3 Programme

5 Editorial

6 Opening Ceremony

13 Visions for the Balkans

18 What Went Wrong in the Balkans?

26 EU Enlargement - What PriceAccession?

35 How to Guarantee EditorialIndependence - Public Media

45 How to Guarantee EditorialIndependence - Private Media

52 Protection of Journalists in Regionsof Conflict

61 IPI Free Media Pioneer 2002

62 Terrorism - The New Threat toGlobal Security

71 Resolutions

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r tS l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a2

Page 3: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r t S l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a 3

THURSDAY, 9 MAY 2002

WELCOME RECEPTION AT THE GRANDHOTEL UNION

FRIDAY, 10 MAY 2002

Grand Hotel Union

OPENING CEREMONY

Mitja Mer{ol,Chairman of IPI Slovenia; Editor-in-Chief, Delo, LjubljanaHugo Bütler, Chairman of IPI; Editor-in-Chief, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, ZurichJohann P. Fritz, Director of IPI

Speaker:Borut Pahor,President, Parliament of Slovenia

SESSION I

“Visions for the Balkans”

Chairperson:Jiri Dienstbier, Ambassador-at-Large; former ForeignMinister of Czechoslovakia;UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rightsin Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia andYugoslavia (1998-2001)

Speakers:Milo Djukanovi},President, MontenegroStjepan Mesi},President, CroatiaZivko Radi{i},Member of the Presidency, Bosnia andHerzegovina

Interviewers:Mark Damazer,

Deputy Director, BBC News, LondonSami Kohen,Senior Editor, Milliyet, IstanbulArmen Oganessiyan,Chairman, Voice of Russia, MoscowDaniel Vernet,Director, International Relations, LeMonde, Paris

LUNCH

SESSION II

“What Went Wrong in the Balkans?”

Chairperson:Boris Bergant, Deputy Director-General, RTV Slovenija,Ljubljana

Speakers:Erhard Busek,Special Coordinator, Stability Pact forSouth Eastern Europe, BrusselsWolfgang Petritsch,High Representative in Bosnia & Herzegovina

Interviewers:Mehmed Husi}, Director & Editor-in-Chief, ONASA NewsAgency, SarajevoRemzi Lani,Director, Albanian Media Institute, TiranaRadomir Li~ina,Chairman of the Board/Senior Editor,Danas, BelgradeStjepan Malovi},Vice Dean, Faculty of Political Science,University of Zagreb;Director, International Centre forEducation of Journalists, Zagreb

RECEPTION AT THE NATIONALGALLERY

SATURDAY, 11 MAY 2002

Grand Hotel Union

IPI GENERAL ASSEMBLY, PART Ifor IPI Members only

SESSION III

“EU Enlargement - What PriceAccession?”

Chairperson:Janne Virkkunen,Senior Editor-in-Chief, Helsingin Sanomat,Helsinki

Speakers:Graham Avery,Chief Adviser, Directorate-General for Enlargement,European Commission, BrusselsJan Kohout,Political Director, Ministry of ForeignAffairs, Czech RepublicLojze Peterle,Member of the Praesidium, EuropeanConvention; former Prime Minister andMinister of Foreign Affairs of SloveniaJanez Poto~nik,Minister for European Affairs, SloveniaBéla Szombati, Undersecretary of State, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, BudapestJan Truszczynski,Chief EU Negotiator, Ministry of ForeignAffairs, Poland

Interviewers:Michael Ehrenreich,Editor-in-Chief, Berlingske Tidende,CopenhagenPaul Lendvai,Editor-in-Chief, Europäische Rundschau,Vienna

LUNCH

PROGRAMME

Page 4: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

SESSION IV (A)

“How to Guarantee EditorialIndependence” (Public Media)

Chairperson:Sandra Ba{i}-Hrvatin,President, Slovenian BroadcastingCouncil, Ljubljana

Panelists:Danail Danov,Programme Director, MediaDevelopment Centre, SofiaChristina Jutterström,Director-General, Swedish Television,StockholmAntonio Riva,former Director-General, SRG - SwissRadio & TV, ZurichAlbert Scharf,former Director-General, BayerischerRundfunk, MunichMilan Stibral,Director-General, CTK Czech NewsAgency, PragueIstván Wisinger,President, Association of HungarianJournalists, Budapest

SESSION IV (B)

“How to Guarantee EditorialIndependence” (Private Media)

Chairperson:Peter Preston, Director, The Guardian Foundation,London

Panelists:Kim Dae-joong,Editor-in-Chief, Chosun Ilbo, SeoulLjubica Markovi},Director, BETA News Agency, BelgradeAlexander Pumpiansky,Editor-in-Chief, Novoye Vremya, Moscow

Richard Steyn,former Editor-in-Chief, The Star,Johannesburg

CONCERT AT THE LJUBLJANAPHILHARMONIC HOUSE

RECEPTION AT LJUBLJANA CASTLEhosted by the Mayor of the City ofLjubljana, Viktorija Poto~nik

SUNDAY, 12 MAY 2002

Grand Hotel Union

IPI GENERAL ASSEMBLY, PART IIfor IPI Members only

SESSION V

“Protection of Journalists in Regions ofConflict”

Chairperson:Richard Tait,Editor-in-Chief, ITN, London

Keynote Statement:Chris Cramer,President, CNN International Networks,Atlanta

Panelists:Robert Cox, President, Inter American PressAssociation (IAPA), MiamiRonald Koven,European Representative, World PressFreedom Committee, ParisRafael Marques, Freelance Journalist; Country Director,Open Society Foundation, LuandaRodney Pinder,Editor, Video News, Reuters, London

Aidan White,General Secretary, InternationalFederation of Journalists, Brussels

LUNCH

PRESENTATION OF THE “FREE MEDIAPIONEER 2002”awarded to Danas, BelgradeRadomir Li~ina, Chairman of the Board/Senior Editor,Danas, Belgrade

SESSION VI

“Terrorism - The New Threat to GlobalSecurity”

Chairperson:H.D.S. Greenway, Columnist, The Boston Globe, Boston, MA

Panelists:Owais Aslam Ali,Chairman, Pakistan Press International(PPI), KarachiMelissa Fleming,Senior Information Officer, Division ofPublic Information,International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA), ViennaYosri Fouda,Deputy Executive Director, Al JazeeraSatellite Channel,London (UK) BureauFernando Reinares,Professor and Chair in Political Science,King Juan Carlos University, Madrid

PRESENTATION OF THE IPI WORLDCONGRESS 2003, NAIROBI, KENYA

FAREWELL DINNER AT THE GRANDHOTEL UNION

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r tS l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a4

Page 5: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r t S l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a 5

In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatiadeclared full independence from the SocialistFederal Republic of Yugoslavia. Federal troopsresponded by bombing Ljubljana airport, amongother targets, but soon withdrew from Slovenia.Fighting, however, intensified in Croatia and adecade of wars and inter-ethnic conflict in theformer Yugoslavia followed, leaving tens ofthousands dead and millions homeless.

Ten years after the recognition of theindependence of Slovenia by the internationalcommunity, the IPI Slovenian National Com-mittee invited IPI to hold its World Congress and51st General Assembly in Ljubljana - now thecapital city of a small and ambitious republic onthe verge of accession to the European Union(EU) - in order to discuss, among other things,what went wrong in the Balkans.

From the outset, the media was tragical-ly entwined in the deadly cycle of violence inthe Balkans. A brave few, including the journal-ists at the independent Belgrade-based dailynewspaper Danas, the recipient of the 2002 IPIFree Media Pioneer Award, were determined toreport objectively on events unfolding in theregion, often facing appalling consequences as aresult, but others added to the tensions throughbiased or sensationalist reporting, fanning theflames of hatred.

With this in mind, IPI, together with itsaffiliate, the South East Europe Media Orga-nisation (SEEMO), decided to hold, in conjunc-tion with the Ljubljana Congress, a seminar on“The Media and Conflict Prevention in theFormer Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia(FYROM)”. At the beginning of 2001, a conflicthad erupted in northern Macedonia as the coun-try fell victim to ethnic tension and violence.Many accused the Macedonian media of disre-garding objectivity and exacerbating tensionthrough unbalanced reporting. Another long andbloody Balkan war seemed imminent. In anattempt to improve the situation, IPI and SEEMObrought together for the first time 35 editors andleading journalists from all the ethnic groupingsin the FYROM in order to enter into a dialogueand promote mutual understanding throughaccurate and fair reporting.

IPI has had a long tradition of organisingbilateral meetings intended to achieve under-standing among journalists and, consequently,

among peoples. The first series of such meetingswas held between French and German editors inthe early days of the Institute, when press rela-tions between France and Germany wereseverely strained. The first session took place inJanuary 1954 in the building of the Council ofEurope in Strasbourg, considered neutral territo-ry by both sides. The meetings, ten in all, con-tinued until 1960 when, happily, there were nopoints of difference left for discussion.

Important results in terms of mutualunderstanding and more sophisticated reportingwere also achieved in meetings between Britishand German editors, and between the Dutchand Indonesians, in the 1950s. Greek andTurkish editors met on Rhodes in March 1961;the Japanese and Koreans held five meetingsduring the 1960s; and Austrian and Italian edi-tors met in 1970 and 1971 to improve press cov-erage of the South Tyrol. A series of IPI-initiatedtalks between Japanese and American editors,beginning in 1970, when old frictions betweenthe two countries were on the rise, helped to mo-derate the attitude of the media on both sides.

The IPI/SEEMO seminar in Ljubljanaalso proved to be a success, with all sides coop-erating to produce some sensible agreements.Among other things, it was agreed that theyshould meet again in Skopje, the capital of theFYROM, for further discussions.

During the following three days, partici-pants of the Ljubljana Congress were able tohear the opinions of three of the region’s leaders- Milo Djukanovi} of Montenegro, StjepanMesi} of Croatia, and Zivko Radi~i} of Bosnia-Herzegovina - who gave their own perspectiveson regional development and long-term stabilityin the post-Milosevi} era.

In the session entitled “What WentWrong in the Balkans?”, two representatives ofthe international community - Erhard Busek ofthe Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe andWolfgang Petritsch, High Representative inBosnia-Herzegovina - analysed the role of thewide array of international actors who were un-able to prevent Yugoslavia’s descent into civil war.

A highly-qualified panel of EU expertsdiscussed the current enlargement facing theEuropean Union in the session “EU Enlargement- What Price Accession?” and examined thepolitical problems facing the candidate coun-

tries as they try to meet the tough entrancerequirements set by the EU.

Following two sessions on importantprofessional issues, “How to Guarantee EditorialIndependence” and “Protection of Journalists inRegions of Conflict”, the IPI Congress closedwith a session on a timely subject, “Terrorism -The New Threat to Global Security”, whichexamined what the international community isdoing to combat an enemy that is faceless,obeys no rules of war and considers no targetsoff limits.

As was the case during the Balkan con-flict, the media is inextricably entwined in the“war on terror”. After the events of September11, the United States found itself engulfed in adebate over the balance of national security,freedom of expression and patriotism. Fears thatthe Bush administration’s anti-terrorism meas-ures could infringe on press freedom were soonconfirmed when the U.S. State Departmentattempted to interfere in the editorial independ-ence of both Voice of America and an inde-pendent TV station based in another country, al-Jazeera in Qatar. In addition, the White Houseasked the major TV news organisations - ABCNews, CBS News, NBC News, CNN and the FoxNews Channel - to abridge any future video-taped statements from Osama bin Laden afterthey had broadcast, unedited, a taped messagefrom bin Laden. The White House also askedU.S. newspapers to refrain from publishing fulltranscripts of statements issued by the terroristleader.

The United States and Canada, as wellas many other countries, have now passed anti-terrorism legislation, which many fear will un-dermine civil liberties, including freedom of ex-pression and freedom of information, and couldserve as examples for authoritarian regimesaround the world who wish to silence theiropponents in the name of fighting terrorism.

The media have a fundamental role toserve the public’s right to know. It will be up toIPI and other free press groups to ensure that anystrategies to combat the threat of terrorism mustrespect freedom of expression as set out inArticle 19 of the Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights and to ensure the right of jour-nalists to report freely and fully on terrorism inthe public interest.

Michael Kudlak, Congress Coordinator and Editor, IPI Congress Report

Editorial:

IncreasingUnderstandingBetweenJournalists

Page 6: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

WELCOME

OPENING STATEMENTS

SPEAKER

Mitja Mer{ol,Chairman of IPI Slovenia; Editor-in-Chief,Delo, Ljubljana

Hugo Bütler,Chairman of IPI; Editor-in-Chief, NeueZürcher Zeitung, ZurichJohann P. Fritz,Director of IPI

Borut Pahor, President, Parliament of Slovenia

“You have come to a small country withgreat ambitions. A country which is tryingto eliminate historical backlogs in thedevelopment of democracy, enforcehuman rights and enhance the rule of law, and at the same time promote a strategy of rapid modernisation whichwill allow us to join the most advancedEuropean countries. This is not an automatic process. It can only be implemented in a free and open environment that cannot be establishedwithout freedom of the media.”

Borut Pahor

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r tS l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a6

Friday, 10 May 2002

OPENING CEREMONYGrand Hotel Union

Page 7: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r t S l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a 7

Mitja Mer{ol, Chairman of IPI Slovenia; Editor-in-Chief, Delo, LjubljanaDobrodo{li!

Dobrodo{li! Welcome!

Welcome to Ljubljana, welcome to Slovenia. The IPI family is once again together. 460 par-ticipants from 64 countries are here today in Ljubljana, and your presence is important toSlovenia, my country, on the sunny side of the Alps. The IPI World Congress and 51stGeneral Assembly will contribute toward raising awareness about - and seeking possiblesolutions for - the problems of the world we live in. There is no doubt that our gathering herewill generate our common efforts in the field of journalism. It will also help to promote free-dom of expression and emphasise all the words, goals and ideas that we fight for. So, wel-come to Slovenia, welcome to Ljubljana. I am certain that our few days here together willbe fruitful and that we will help make the world a better place.

Once again, Dobro dosli!

Page 8: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

Almost 11 years after the proclama-tion of its independence from the SocialistFederal Republic of Yugoslavia, Sloveniastands as a successful example of EasternEurope in transition. The economic andpolitical reforms have advanced very far,and the country belongs to the leadinggroup of candidates for the EU accession.Negotiations are expected to be finished bythe end of this year. Slovenia might theneven be able to take part in the votingprocess for the European Parliament in2004, as a member of the European Union.Chances are also very good that Sloveniawill be invited to join NATO at the summitin Prague in November.

In the final phase of Marshal JosipTito’s multi-ethnic Yugoslavia, Slovenia wasalso the pioneer of economic openness,freedom and political democratisation. Thefirst attempts to reject Communism and tomodernise the economy took place at a rel-atively early stage. Towards the end of the1980s, the calls for the state’s independencefrom Yugoslavia rang ever louder. TheSlovenian media profoundly influenced andenabled the political and economic reforms,and helped to initiate the secession fromBelgrade, which ended on June 25, 1991,with the declaration of independence.

It is, therefore, no coincidence thatin June 1991 the transmitter masts of themain television station were one of theprime targets during Belgrade’s militaryincursion into Slovenia. This type of aggres-sion was repeated in the wars in Croatia andBosnia-Herzegovina. The state-ownedmedia in each of the republics played ahighly important and sometimes fateful roleprior to the bloody break-up of Yugoslavia.

A part of the media allowed itself tobecome a political instrument by nationalistleaders. The majority of the media becamecomplacent tools of the ruling power andwere used in the service of nationalist ide-ologies. They helped stir up ethnic hatred,spread defamation, and instigated veritablehate campaigns. With their hate speech,they fomented and instilled the concept ofwar in the public mind. The war in the

Balkans began with language. The mediawar raged before the first shot was evenfired. It should, however, not be forgottenthat some media outlets kept their inde-pendence despite the enormous pressureexerted on them. They rejected the rulingparties and bravely countered destructive,aggressive nationalism.

The Croatian writer DubravkaUgre{i} wrote the following in an essay ofDecember 1993:

“With words it all began, and withwords it will all end. And over the time ofreality in between - thousands of dead,beaten, wounded and evacuated people;destroyed houses, villages and towns! Oneday, a steam-roller of words will roll andcover the factual tragedy with concrete, withinterpretations - historical, political, mili-tary-strategic, cultural, and literary.”

This essay can be found in the“Culture of Lies”, which was written as areaction to the destruction of Yugoslavia and the wars in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

To prevent the tragedy of the pastdecade from becoming sealed in words andset phrases or, in what amounts to the samething, from being swept under the carpet, isone of the most important, but at the sametime most difficult tasks of the media in for-mer Yugoslavia.

After the political changes of the pasttwo years, the media in Croatia, as well as inSerbia and Montenegro, face new chal-lenges. The same applies to the press and tothe electronic media in Bosnia, Kosovo andin Macedonia.

After the end of the Balkan wars, theconstruction of a new democratic order andthe creation of a civil society under the ruleof law is of prime significance. Similarly,one of the most important challenges facingthe media consists of the painful task ofdealing with the recent past. The media alsohave a role to play in uncovering warcrimes.

I cannot accept the points of view ofthose who think that such work is unneces-sary, or even damaging, as this would only

serve to open old wounds that have yet toheal. The digging up of the past, so the argu-ment runs, prevents the pragmatic shapingof the future.

It is however a fact that the oldYugoslavia also broke up because the warcrimes of World War II had not been dealtwith. In the spirit of a new “Brotherhood andUnity”, these atrocities were simply sweptunder the carpet. As a consequence, nation-alist leaders were able to play with nationalprejudices for years. A part of the media sup-ported them in this. By evoking the crimescommitted by the other side in World War II,they were fostering a climate of fear andmenace. This was the soil on which vio-lence grew.

The examination of the recent past istherefore no luxury. It is a political necessityand an important precedent for democraticrenewal and lasting peace in the Balkans. Itis the basis for reconciliation and tolerancebetween ethnic groups. It is to be hoped thatthe media will continue to focus on this.

In this spirit, the International PressInstitute opens its Ljubljana World Congress.

In this spirit, we have dedicated thepolitical topics of this event to a re-evalua-tion of the past and to the vision of a politi-cal future.

And in this spirit, a parallel eventtakes place here in Ljubljana. The IPI-affili-ated South East Europe Media Organisation(SEEMO) has invited editors-in-chief andother media representatives from Mace-donia and neighbouring regions to a semi-nar on “The Media and Conflict Preventionin Macedonia”. Over 35 editors and leadingmedia representatives from the various eth-nic groups in Macedonia are gathering herefor discussions and consultation on how topromote mutual understanding.

I wish this seminar, as well as the IPIWorld Congress, a good and successful run,and would like to take the opportunity toexpress my heartfelt thanks the President ofthe National Assembly and to PresidentKu~an for their support and co-operation,and I wish President Ku~an a fast recoveryfrom the operation that he has to undergo.

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r tS l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a8

Hugo Bütler, Chairman of IPI; Editor-in-Chief,Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Zurich

With Words it All Began

Page 9: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r t S l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a 9

This meeting here in Slovenia is avery impressive and interesting one. Today,we will be confronted with the visions forthis region formulated by leaders from theformer Yugoslavia.

However, we must realise thatminorities have been and still are the mostdangerous and complicated potential forconflict in the region. Minorities aredefined as groups of citizens who have dif-ferent ethnic, linguistic, cultural or reli-gious backgrounds than the majority of thepopulation in a specific country.

Max van der Stoel, the long-timeOSCE High Commissioner for nationalminorities in the Balkans, blames the gov-ernments of the region that they did notand still do not take enough initiative toprevent obvious potential crises. They, aswell as almost all other European states,spend up to 40 times more for militarybudgets than for conflict prevention.

South Eastern Europe urgentlyneeds a revitalisation of civil society. In1999, the United Nation’s SecretaryGeneral Kofi Annan stated: “Emergingslowly but surely is an international normagainst violent repressions of minoritiesthat will and must take precedence overconcerns of state sovereignty.”

Citizenship is not constituted bygroups but by individuals interacting as cit-izens with specific interests and goals.Thus, common citizenship must notrequire a common form of life, commonexistential values or a common historicpast. With a proper democratic approach,multi-ethnic societies do have the opportu-nity for a greater cultural enrichment and amore dynamic development than others.

However, even if equal rights exist,this does not automatically mean equalchances. Anti-discriminatory training forpublic officials at all levels of the adminis-tration is needed. And governments wouldbe well advised to learn best practices fromtheir counterparts in the transitional coun-tries of Central and Eastern Europe.Furthermore, they must realise that civilmovements, non-governmental organisa-

tions and citizen groups can play a leadingrole in social change, innovation and trans-formation. But they require a set of legalmechanisms which permits their independ-ent existence and could foster their growth.

Tomorrow our attention will bedevoted to the perspectives of the enlarge-ment of the European Union. The currentenlargement project embraces 13 countriesand will represent an increase in area of 34per cent and in population of 150 millions.This development could be a historicopportunity to further the integration of theEuropean continent by peaceful means.

However, it is a costly experimentsince the European Investment Bankbelieves that these 13 nations need aboutUS$ 30 billion in order to adapt their infra-structure according to the requested stan-dards. But the most important criteria foraccession is the need for applicants toachieve stability of institutions guarantee-ing democracy. Only this way can a largerEuropean Union develop into a zone of sta-bility and sustainable growth.

The most exciting session for themedia professionals gathered here will betomorrow afternoon on the issue of editori-al independence. It will certainly not beeasy to bridge the gap between publicmedia and private media, as well as themany different cultural approaches whichwe find in various regions and continents.

On Sunday morning, the debateswill focus on the issue of protecting jour-nalists in regions of conflict. Our col-leagues at the frontline are not putting theirlives at risk for the sake of sensationalism,but to obtain facts and to bring home to thepublic the news untainted by lies and prop-aganda. Afterward, we will hand over the2002 “Free Media Pioneer” Award.

During the final session we will seethat terrorism is a particularly viciousspecies of psychological warfare. Islamicextremists, for example, are not so muchaiming at influencing the West, but atexpelling the West from the Muslim worldbecause of its secular, modernising influ-ence.

They are skilled at shaping politicalopinion in the Arab world against theWestern societies in order to underminemoderate Islamic regimes and to radicalisetheir populations. This is a war of words asmuch as of bombs.

However, the manifold new andsophisticated threats to global security arenot just limited to conservative means ofattack, but also entail potential attacks withnuclear weapons, or chemical and biolog-ical weapons of mass destruction.

In addition, there is the perspectiveof cyber-space warfare, not only against themilitary sector, but also the civilian andcommercial sectors. Attacks launchedagainst Internet-based companies, prima-rily Yahoo, Amazon and so on by virusesand denial of services have already costWestern businesses up to US$ 7 billion indamages over the past 10 years.

The potential disruption of publica-tion and information systems and otherpotentially effective attacks on IT systemswill have priority in the interests of thisgathering of international journalists andeditors.

The chosen topics for this confer-ence should provide enough food forthought and ample opportunity for discus-sion and an exchange of views. I wish yousuccessful deliberations here in this hos-pitable country and charming city.

Johann P. Fritz, Director, International Press Institute (IPI)

Food forThought

Page 10: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

On behalf of the President of theRepublic, I would like to welcome youmost warmly to Slovenia. The Presidentconsiders your decision to choose ourcountry for the venue of the congress as arecognition of Slovenia and its mediaactivity.

You have come to a small countrywith great ambitions. A country which istrying to eliminate historical backlogs inthe development of democracy, enforcehuman rights and enhance the rule oflaw, and at the same time promote astrategy of rapid modernisation whichwill allow us to join the most advancedEuropean countries.

This is not an automatic process. Itcan only be implemented in a free andopen environment that cannot be estab-lished without freedom of the media. Iwould like to take this opportunity toensure this assembly that the SlovenianParliament is determined to investigatethe assault on journalist Miro Petek andthus contribute to protecting freedom ofthe press.

Last month I visited Belgrade,Pri{tina and Sarajevo. It was my first visitafter the war. One of the most significantchanges I noticed concerned the freedomof the media. The media may providepessimistic assessments of the efficiencyof post-war reconstruction, yet my coun-terparts believe that the mere fact thatsuch things can now be read or seen isthe most solid proof that the reconstruc-tion is successful and irreversible. This isindeed a very important and encouragingstatement for a future of peace, securityand welfare in a region so unstable in thelast decade.

My visit was not coincidental.Slovenia wishes to enhance bilateralcooperation and friendship, share itsexperience regarding democratic transi-tion and learn about the ambitions ofthose countries. Our counterparts in theinternational community justifiably askus to provide our views about the situa-tion in the region and about our respon-

sibility and readiness to join the interna-tional community in its efforts towardsestablishing peace, security and demo-cracy. Slovenia, a candidate for acces-sion to the European Union and NATO,understands such responsibility and isready to accept it.

A democratic, economic andsocial rebirth of Southeast Europe con-tributes to the elimination of historicalbacklogs in European integration pro-cesses. Prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall,such processes had been limited to theWestern Europe, yet upon the rise of newdemocracies they have expandedtowards Eastern and Central Europe andshould include the whole Europe for thesake of peace in the Balkans.

Europe is not integrating merely toprotect and strengthen its democratic va-lues, but also to organize itself as part ofthe global world. New questions about itsinternal identity arise with regard to theindividual citizen, along with those con-cerning its image and role in the interna-tional community.

What the European experiencehas to offer to the world in the third mil-lennium is a message of tolerance andrespect for differences as the foundationsfor a life in common. There is nothingidyllic about it; it is an effort towardsmutual respect and consideration. It isrivalry enriched with solidarity.

I am not speaking about a medi-cine that will save the new world butonly describing an experience which cangive it new hope. The more free theworld is, the more hope there will be forit. To a great extent this also depends onthe power of the media - your power andfreedom.

I therefore wish the congress allthe best and I wish you successful workand a pleasant stay in Slovenia.

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r tS l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a10

Borut Pahor, President, Parliament of Slovenia

A Small Countrywith Great Ambitions

Page 11: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r t S l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a 11

It gives me great pleasure to be ableto welcome you here in Slovenia. It is a truecommendation to Slovenian journalism andto my country that you have chosen theSlovenian house as the venue for your meet-ing in our global village. Welcome.

Free expression of opinions, editorialindependence and the sensitive perception ofthe true dilemmas of mankind are as indis-pensable a prerequisite for the freedom of theindividual, for internal freedom and for theopenness of any society and the global worldas water is indispensable to life. I thereforehope that the congress here in Slovenia,where you will be deliberating on theseissues, will fulfil your expectations and bringnew hope for democracy in the world.

Without a free media allowing for theself-reflection of a society there is no brightfuture for the world. Today that world doesnot only project its lighter sides. It is dividedinto people, nations and states with grandopportunities on the one hand, and thosewithout a future on the other. It is divided intosafe regions of peace and regions of war andviolence against human dignity and rights. Itis divided into a world of democratic princi-ples and tolerance, and a world of funda-mentalisms of all shapes. It is divided into aworld of knowledge and modern technology,and a world to which all this is inaccessible.

There are no impenetrable bordersbetween these worlds, though. Globalisationof the economy, information and the envi-ronment has made the world a single, indi-visible world. Whatever plight comes to oneof us has consequences on every one of us.But in spite of that an awareness of our inter-dependence is setting in only very slowly.Even slower at setting in are actions express-ing a common responsibility for mankind andfor life on our planet.

Understandably, such a world gener-ates ever louder calls for a more profounddialogue on humanity’s global dilemmas, onworld ethics, on the common values servingas the guiding principle for all our actions inorder for us to live safely in peace and for allof us to enjoy a better future, greater prosper-ity and social justice, with less violence, less

environmental, humanitarian and social dis-asters. No society, not even a global one, canexist without moral values and without rulesbased on ethical principles regulating thefunctioning of such a society. Respectingthese rules allows for active coexistence andprevents the world from turning into a clashof civilisations, into a battle of all against all.

This is so much more the reason whyan interdependent world requires suchethics. It requires common fundamental stan-dards of behaviour, with all of us protectinglife and human dignity, human rights, pro-tecting life as the supreme value, protectingnature and preserving it for future genera-tions, not producing weapons of massdestruction, be they biological, chemical ornuclear, overseeing genetic and medicalexperiments, not offering refuge to terrorists,preventing international crime of all sorts,etc. The world needs such rules of behaviourand global governance that will implement acommon responsibility for the future ofhumanity and of our planet based on suchstandards.

Is it therefore not time for us to startconsidering some sort of treaty betweencountries? A treaty voluntarily binding coun-tries to the respect of common values andcommon standards of behaviour for our com-mon benefit and because of our commonresponsibility, a treaty whereby countrieswould agree to democratic oversight of theiractions and to measures to be taken againstoffenders? Perhaps this sounds utopian rightnow as it is striking on a formidable obstacle- the phenomenon of national sovereignty. Inspite of the anachronism of understandingnational sovereignty as an absolute valuedeveloped in political theory and practicethrough the centuries, it still remains the basisof international relations. The UN has never-theless reached beyond the absolute applica-tion of this idea with the principle of human-itarian intervention.

Any agreement or treaty betweencountries can therefore only be realisticallyconsidered within the UN, whose universalnature, in spite of its known deficiencies,obviously makes it the only forum capable of

conducting a dialogue on these issues and onsuch a treaty. Such an agreement would beeven more realistic if it were based on theprinciple of equality between all major civil-isations and the states and nations belongingto them. It would be even more effective if itwere not based solely on repression of viola-tions. No regime, not even the internationalcommunity, can be effective only throughrepression or military supremacy. Also, thefight against terrorism cannot prove effectivein the long run if we fail to fight with equalvigour against poverty, ignorance and disre-spect of man, his dignity and rights.

The world needs balanced develop-ment. Every person, every nation, every statehas the right to a future in this world, whilehaving a responsibility for their actions notonly towards themselves, but to everyone.The world needs global responsibility, andthat starts on each of our doorsteps. An agree-ment of the entire democratic world is need-ed on how each of us individually and all ofus together could responsibly work towards apeaceful and better world.

On our path towards this aim we shallcertainly require fundamental intellectual,ethical and political consideration. I suppose,though, that there are no serious doubts any-more as to the need for global dialogue andthat the UN must be enabled for such a dia-logue. That dialogue will be made easier andtolerant if made accessible to the public, ifthe media will have their doors wide open, asmany already have.

A dialogue is also needed on thefuture of Europe, on the common goals andvalues that are the prerequisite for a unitedEurope. We want a Europe that will success-fully engage in a dialogue with other centresof this global world. A Europe that will becapable of assuming its own share of theresponsibility for the situation in the world,that will be capable of connecting all its voic-es into one single voice of peace and socialjustice for the entire world. A Europe that willparticipate in the world and in the global dia-logue as a special and recognisable politicalentity. Or can we perhaps say that it isalready acting in such a way? The Conven-

Milan Ku~an,President of Slovenia

A Global Worldin Need of Ethics

Page 12: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

tion on the Future of Europe is an opportuni-ty for joint deliberation on such a unitedEurope. That is why we Europeans expect somuch from it. We first of all expect a com-mon European consideration on the modernworld and its diversity, a consideration of ourdesired role in such a world, our influenceand our responsibility, as well as the ways tocome nearer to achieving that desired role. Ifthe Convention will succeed in inciting suchthought, it will certainly clear the pathtowards our goal.

Perhaps it is Central Europe, the heartof the old continent in both sunshine and inrain, that has the greatest expectations of thisConvention. This is where the values allow-ing for a tolerant and creative coexistence ofdifferences were created. This is also wherefundamentalisms were born that threatenthese values. This is where the Berlin Wallseparated democracy from totalitarianism.This is where nations and states were vio-lently thrust in ideological and politicalmonolithy, into civilisations foreign to them.This is where a decade ago a common areaof democratic values was reborn, values thatare the moral foundations for coexistencebetween the peoples, nations and statesacross Europe.

Yet Central Europe leads a life that isfar from being idyllic. This is where aggres-sive national populisms reside, conjuring upthe evil spirits of the past. They are at theirmost comfortable in a provincial and xeno-phobic atmosphere and therefore nurture it,fomenting against any kind of difference.These phenomena are the complete oppositeof the desired shape of future states, nationsand the majority of people in Central Europe.But they are here, smothering the free spirit.They profess an unkind future if the demo-cratic world of Central Europe and of Europeas a whole will give them way or even givein to them, as has already happened in thefirst half of the previous century.

The Western Balkans are a tragicexample of such events. The Balkans are alsoa place where good people had always lived,people with their own dreams, hopes andambitions. But politics that drew their

strength from national traumas and mythsinstead of reality and good ideas for thefuture caught them in the web of nationalexclusivity that does not recognise the samerights for others and for those that are differ-ent. The consequences in this ethnicallymixed region were horrendous and it seemsthat the way out of the entanglement innational ideas elevated above the clouds ismuch longer than the path towards them.

Nevertheless, democracy is returningto the region. The endeavours of the interna-tional community for the long-term stabilisa-tion of this part of Europe were extremelygreat, although grave mistakes were alsocommitted. The final success depends for themost part on the unity of European and glob-al interests and views as to the future of theBalkans. It depends also on the recognitionthat even in this region the same principles,values and relations must apply as applyelsewhere in Europe, that here too nationsmust live together, one with the other, notone against the other. It depends on therecognition that also the Balkan nations cre-ate the future together with other Europeansin processes of European integration and uni-fication. Dreams, hopes and ambitions arecoming back to life. The expectations aregreat also of the media, that their profession-alism - implying a critical distance from ele-vating certain ideas above all others, fromthe iconography and mythology of the past -will see them fulfil their task in environmentsthat, just like Central Europe, belong to thecommon European home.

Historical circumstance had CentralEuropean Slovenia live as part of this regionfor 70 years, a region that in the past centurywas an arena of ethnic clashes and warsrather than peace, democracy and develop-ment. A free, European way of life and theright to a future were the values that incitedSlovenes over a decade ago to form a strongwill for our own country and with it to enterEuropean and Euro-Atlantic structures. In tenyears, Slovenia transformed into a modernEuropean country. It is capable and willing todecide on the future of Europe and of theworld together with other democratic

nations, in order for Europe and the world tobe to made also to its own measure. It ismature enough to see beyond the grudgesand injustices it suffered in the past andexpects the same of others.

Slovenia’s ambitions are great. Itwants to become a country of excellence,since only that can serve as its comparativeadvantage. It wants to be competitive in anincreasingly competitive world, while at thesame time working with all those who areprepared to respect common rules. It wantsto offer its citizens good education, create acountry of lifelong learning, to become anarea with an information technology indus-try, a free market for goods, services, capital,labour and ideas, a democratic space of dif-ference, a pluralistic country with an inde-pendent media. A country that is sufficientlyself-confident to maintain its spiritual andcultural identity. Slovenia, a democratic andopen market economy, a welfare state of freepeople, already is such a country in manyrespects. Where and what its problems are issomething, I trust, you will be able to tell foryourselves.

Ladies and Gentlemen, you havegreat power in your hands and you share theresponsibility for the future of humanity withall the other levers of democracy in modernsociety. That is why I wanted to focus yourattention on some of the problems and greatchallenges of the modern world that requireconsidered answers. These challenges arecommon to us all. We are all facing them. Itwill perhaps be easier to find the answerswith your involvement. That is why thefuture of this world also depends on you. Ifirmly believe that you share my hope for akind future.

Editor’s note: President Ku~an, whowas hospitalised on 8 May 2002 due tohealth problems, was unable to deliver thisspeech. He was released from hospital on 10May after having a small kidney stone surgi-cally removed.

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r tS l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a12

A Global World in Need of Ethics

Page 13: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r t S l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a 13

CHAIRPERSON

SPEAKERS

INTERVIEWERS

Jiri Dienstbier, Ambassador-at-Large; former ForeignMinister of Czechoslovakia; UN SpecialRapporteur on Human Rights in Bosniaand Herzegovina, Croatia and Yugoslavia(1998-2001)

Milo Djukanovi}, President, MontenegroStjepan Mesi}, President, CroatiaZivko Radi{i}, Member of the Presidency, Bosnia andHerzegovina

Mark Damazer, Deputy Director, BBC News, LondonSami Kohen, Senior Editor, Milliyet, IstanbulArmen Oganessiyan, Chairman, Voice of Russia, MoscowDaniel Vernet, Director, International Relations, LeMonde, Paris

“I am glad that there is no longer a needfor visions to end the war, to stop ethniccleansing, and so on, and that we arenow experiencing a more positive timefor the whole region.”

Jiri Dienstbier

Friday, 10 May 2002

SESSION I

VISIONS FORTHE BALKANSGrand Hotel Union

Page 14: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

Montenegro wants to be presenteverywhere where a democratic, Euro-pean future for the Balkans is being dis-cussed or pondered upon. I believe it isnot presumptuous to say that this is wherea democratic Montenegro belongs. It hasdeserved this by preserving peace andmulti-ethnic harmony over the lastdecade, during a time when wars wereraging across its borders, by choosing itsown reformist, democratic and Europeancourse, and by contributing to the consol-idation of democratic forces in Serbia, aswell as by standing up to the formerBelgrade dictatorship.

Throughout its political history, theBalkans have been perceived as a syn-onym for everything that is backward andretrograde, as a homeland of xenophobiaand myth mania, a region turned to thepast and an antipode to modern civilisa-tion trends. Nevertheless, the Balkans aregeographically and historically part ofEurope. Therefore, in my opinion, tospeak of the future of the Balkans is tospeak of the future of Europe, too. Thefuture of the Balkans lies in a modernEuropeanisation and in a meaningful uni-fication with Europe. On such premises,the European Union (EU) has lately beendeveloping and strengthening a pro-activestrategy for a democratic transition of theBalkans and its full integration into the EU.

The EU has clearly demonstratedthis strategic priority through theStabilisation and Association Process,explicitly opening prospects for all thecountries of the region. On the otherhand, the political momentum of thisEuropean strategy is increasingly becom-ing the pillar of the action of all the dem-ocratic forces and of their political elites inthe Balkans. The synergy and coherenceof this two-way European road is alreadyproducing visible results.

Throughout its history, the Balkanshave never been closer to Europe thantoday. It is of crucial importance that theEU has for the first time defined a pro-active strategy through its readiness to

provide mechanisms of a controlled chan-nelling of reforms towards establishing anEU-compatible, institutional, legislativeand economic system. And yet, mostdepends on us who live in the Balkans.This is primarily a long process of reform-ing mindsets, habits, ways of thinking, andof adopting European values, their sub-stance and import. No one can do this forus. The EU, the United States or anyoneelse from the outside, cannot substitute forthe key role the national governmentshave to play in this process. It is a difficultand painful process, which in the transi-tion period calls for huge sacrifices. Thesooner we accept this as somethinginevitable, the faster we shall go forward.

The requirements that we have tofulfil and our response to them are not amere demonstration of political rhetoricalskills. It is however of utmost importanceto genuinely adopt the language ofEuropean communication. Political con-sensus is necessary, but it is insufficient initself. Reform adjustments that govern-ments achieve in the field represent thereal progress and a reference point thatwill dictate the pace of integration into theEU, for individual states and for theregion.

Therefore, the question is notwhether the Balkans will be part of the EU,but in what time frame this goal is reach-able, both at the national and regional lev-els. The Stabilisation and AssociationProcess provides prerequisites and mech-anisms, taking account of the differentcapacities and capabilities of the differentcountries which make it necessary thatthey proceed at their own pace towardsthe final goal - membership of the EU.

Creating conditions for a stablepeace and security in the Balkans, and forits strategic and economic development,are two intertwined and interdependentprocesses. The roots of democracy andstability can only be consolidated in theBalkans if its deep economic backward-ness and divisions are overcome, the ruleof law is implemented, along with multi-

ethnic tolerance and a modern marketeconomy, and if an appropriate institu-tional capacity is developed. A prerequi-site for this is tackling those problems thatare top international priorities, such ascombating organised crime, corruptionand other illicit activities. Countries intransition, the so-called emerging democ-racies and on top of everything else coun-tries which were subject to a long interna-tional isolation, represent a fertile soil forsuch negative occurrences. To the catego-ry of major and pressing steps belongs thelong transformation of the army andpolice and placing them under civiliancontrol.

All these fundamental changes fallprimarily within the competence ofnational governments and can beachieved through a relationship or part-nership with the appropriate supportmechanisms of the EU and U.S., whichwill allow us to deal with the conse-quences that those processes inevitablybring about. Under the conditions ofmulti-layered globalisation and interde-pendence, it is clear that a problem of anyone part soon becomes a common prob-lem and that categories of traditional polit-ical and economic sovereignty are outdat-ed. Integration of the Balkans into the EUwill proceed faster and more efficiently ifall the countries of the region show readi-ness to overcome all outstanding issues intheir mutual relations, making their plansfor economic and political developmentconducive to stability, European standardsand cooperation. At any rate, this is one ofthe chief preconditions of the Stabilisationand Association Process as the key instru-ment of the EU policy for the Balkans. Themodel of regional cooperation means ineffect extending the EU philosophy toembrace the Balkans.

I believe that the Agreement onguiding principles for restructuring therelationship between Montenegro andSerbia, signed on 14 March in Belgrade, isan example of a new reality in theBalkans, an indication that the decade-

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r tS l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a14

Milo Djukanovi}, President of Montenegro

ReformingMindsets

Page 15: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r t S l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a 15

long Yugoslav crisis, which began in a typ-ically Balkan style, could end in aEuropean style. The greatest responsibilityfor this rests with the participants in theprocess of dialogue. However, I wish onceagain to reaffirm the positive role in thisprocess of the European Union and itsHigh Representative, Javier Solana, whoinitiated the resumption of dialogue andmade possible the above Agreement.

I think that this Agreement repre-sents the most obvious proof of positivedevelopment in the early post-Milo{evi}era. One should not attach too great animportance to the difficulties in the initialphase of implementation of the BelgradeAgreement. The resilient relics of the old,retrograde forces are finding it hard toaccept the changes and new trends.

Montenegro is committed to do itsbest to implement the obligations underthe Agreement. Its contents represent themost transparent recognition and verifica-tion of the reform accomplishments thatMontenegro has reached over the past dif-ficult years. The Agreement takes accountof the degree of reform achievements inthe member states. It has at the same timeput an end to the Yugoslav illusion, which

Slobodan Milo{evi} skilfully manipulatedfor almost a decade. The old Europeanstates, Montenegro and Serbia, are backon the international stage with their statenames.

Montenegro has made a conces-sion, accepting to postpone a referendumon its status. It has taken account of theinterests of other participants in the dia-logue process, and of regional and widerinterests. By doing so it has also securedguarantees by the European Union that thereferendum on the status issue, to be heldin three years time, will be respected. Mostimportantly, the Agreement creates condi-tions to speed up the Stabilisation andAssociation Process through harmonisa-tion of the systems of Montenegro andSerbia with the system of the EU.

I am confident that regional rela-tions, too, will be based on a network ofcompatible bilateral treaties, whichimplies free flow of people, goods, capitaland information between countries of theregion and candidate-countries for EUaccession. Conditions will increasingly becreated for building a network of relationswhich will be based on treaties - “conven-tions on regional cooperation” - between

the signatories of the Stabilisation andAssociation Process, as indicated at theZagreb Summit. These agreements willover time bring about a deepened cooper-ation between the countries of the regionand the EU.

The media and their activity, devel-oped in line with European and worldstandards, will play an important role. Theindependence of editors and journalists isa clear indicator of overall democraticachievements in any community.Montenegro is making an intensive efforttowards upgrading legislation in this fieldwith the expert assistance of the Council ofEurope. The media also have a hugeresponsibility in relation to the processesof democratic transformation in theBalkans. And, as the terrorist attacks onNew York and Washington brought theworld together in defending democraticvalues and the achievements of civilisa-tion, I believe that bringing together on acommon European road all democraticand reformist structures in the Balkans canhelp all of us to take as early as possiblethe place that has always been there wait-ing for us in the common European house.

Reforming Mindsets

Page 16: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

You have invited me to talk aboutvisions for the Balkans. This is a topic thatdoes not easily lend itself to discussion. Letme illustrate that by saying that in my coun-try, Croatia, many people do not want toadmit that Croatia is part of the Balkans. Inhistorical memory, the Balkans are thought ofas the tinderbox which triggered the confla-gration of the First World War. They areremembered by the older generation as thescene of bloody confrontations betweenpolitical adversaries during the Second WorldWar, but also by the younger generation, whoremember the Balkans as the source of thewar which swept Croatia a dozen years ago.Hence the antagonism toward even the veryconcept of “the Balkans”.

Yet the Balkans, whether we like it ornot, are also a link between the countries thatemerged from the former Yugoslavia. It istherefore legitimate, and even necessary, forthe President of Croatia to consider his coun-try’s visions for the Balkans. Let me sharethese considerations with you.

After two attempts to create and sus-tain a state, Yugoslavia, comprising most ofthe nations in the Balkans, and after two col-lapses of that state in blood and destruction,it is the destiny of the Balkans, I believe, to bean area of several small states. The history ofthe relations among such states is not devoidof conflict, and I do not have in mind only thewars of the late 20th century. Yet this historyis predominantly one of cooperation andcoexistence. It suggests that the current statesin the Balkans or, to use a term which I findmore precise, Southeast Europe, ought tobase their future on mutual cooperation.

Such cooperation, still found to beodious and dubious by certain people, doesnot lead us to any third Yugoslavia, nor doesit enclose us within the region, as certain ana-lysts and even politicians would like to sug-gest. Such cooperation is in the interest of allBalkan states. It will also give us the opportu-nity for a faster approach and, in the finalstate of the process, accession to Europeanintegration, this being our common goal.

Naturally, this is neither an easy or asimple course. But it is inevitable. This is the

course we have to take if we want to be partof the democratic, developed world. It is nottoo difficult to present the vision of thatcourse, but it will be much more difficult tofollow it to the end.

We are trying to get rid of the ballastof the past - I have in mind the legacy of thesocialist system - and to adopt at the sametime whatever makes up the backbone ofdemocratic capitalism. Let me be frank, in theprocess we sometimes see the survival of themost negative features of socialism, whichenter into a symbiotic relationship with thecharacteristics of unbridled, primitive capital-ism. With disastrous results, of course.

Nevertheless, there are passing nega-tive aspects which will not and should notaffect our basic orientation, our vision. Alongwith democracy, the market economy andregional cooperation, this vision certainly hasto include the association with European andEuro-Atlantic integrations. It also assumes theadoption and enforcement of specific stan-dards, or rules of the game, if you will. Atpresent, we are all in the stage of compliancewith these standards, primarily in the legisla-tive sphere, but also in all other fields, fromeducation through health care to defence. Ofcourse, this also holds good for the mediascene.

Democracy is not something that canjust be learnt. Democracy is a way of life. Weare forced to learn and to start living demo-cratically at the same time. For my genera-tion, although many of its members, includ-ing myself, dreamed of democracy andfought for it, democracy will remain anexperiment in which we have becomeinvolved, aware that there is not and cannotbe any going back. We have indeed assumedthe responsibility for laying the foundations ofdemocracy, but the experiences of the pastsystem, negative and positive alike, still livein our memory and places specific strains onus. It is only for future generations, the gener-ation of our children, not to speak of the chil-dren of their children, that democracy willsimply be everyday life. For them, luckily, ourpast will be only history.

On the course we have taken, weneed the help of the developed democracies.I say “help” and not tutorship spiced witharrogance. I fear the ready-made prescrip-tions we are occasionally offered by the“salesmen” of democracy. Our countrieshave their own histories, cultures and tradi-tions. That is the platform from which wehave set off into democracy. The characterand scope of help will vary from one countryto another, and will have to be adjusted to thespecific conditions of each country.Sometimes, and I am aware of that, help willalso have to be thrust upon us. I have alreadysaid that we are learning and - you tell me -is there any student fully aware of what hehas to learn and of the necessity to learn it?

In conclusion, I shall mention twomore elements which I consider to beunavoidable when considering visions for theBalkans. The first regards a determined reck-oning with the recent past. It implies facingthe truth, whatever it may be like, and theindividual assignment of blame in order toput a stop to collective accusations betweenpeoples.

The second is the elimination of polit-ical propaganda, based on the language ofhate, from the media landscape. The mediamust inform and not indoctrinate. Consi-dering the audience, I probably do not haveto make special reference to MarkThompson’s book, “Forging War: The Mediain Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina”,which confirms the dictum that the word pre-cedes the bullet. With all due respect, themedia - in collusion with politics - haveplayed a pernicious role in the region overthe last decade of the 20th century.

The implementation of the visionwhich I have tried to outline implies releasingthe media from the deadly embrace of poli-tics and the reassertion of professionalism, inpartnership with ethics, as the genuine andonly way toward creating free and responsi-ble media. I know that even in establisheddemocracies they are not all like that, butthose that have a decisive influence on pub-lic opinion generally are. Let that be our goalas well.

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r tS l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a16

Stjepan Mesi}, President of Croatia

A Future of MutualCooperation

Page 17: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r t S l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a 17

On behalf of the Presidency ofBosnia-Herzegovina, I would like toexpress my gratitude to the IPI and ourkind hosts upon the invitation to partici-pate in this eminent Congress. I would liketo express my special thanks for choosingthe Balkans and its visions for the topic ofyour meeting. Unfortunately, the history ofthe Balkans has been one of many con-flicts, wars, suffering, and national andreligious turbulence. Today, the Balkansare going through a healing process. Mostof its states and peoples are healing diffi-cult wounds suffered during the tragicevents in the region, as defined by theDayton Peace Accords seven years ago.

I deliberately mentioned theDayton Accords, because in it we see ourhistoric chance for a new phase of stabili-ty for the region. The democratic and eco-nomic development and the overall stabil-ity of the region are crucial preconditionsfor the stability of Europe and the world.

Today, we in the Balkans are tryingto radically transform our social, legal andconstitutional systems and build stable anddemocratic systems and states. Theseprocesses are supported by Europe and theworld. There can be no stable democraticand prosperous Europe without a stableand developed Balkans. We cannotchange our past, but we can learn from thelessons and messages of the past. The mostimportant message is that only throughpeace, mutual tolerance and respect forthe national, cultural, spiritual and otherinterests of all the peoples and states in theregion can we ensure the basis for eco-nomic and social change.

We believe that the specifics of theregion are not a handicap, but rather anadvantage in strengthening cooperationand speeding up the process of integrationin the region and Europe. We must beresponsible for our own destiny, respecthuman rights and freedoms according tothe highest European and world standards,and strengthen mutual cooperation, notjust in the regional but in the broadersense.

Bosnia-Herzegovina is passingthrough a complex stage of consolidationafter a tragic war. Our progress is signifi-cant compared with where we were sevenor ten years ago. The international com-munity has contributed significantly to thisprogress and, with due respect, I wouldlike to mention the contribution ofAmbassador Wolfgang Petritsch, who ishere with us today. But we are convincedthat we have achieved so far is negligiblecompared with what we should do andwhat our citizens would like us to do. Weare only at the halfway mark in effectivelydealing with elementary human problems,displaced persons, refugees, etc. But I canassure you that today we have a newBosnia-Herzegovina which has a uniquechance to speed up development as a trulymulti-national, multi-confessional andmulti-cultural society.

We are speeding up our reforms inorder to create the preconditions for largerforeign investments. We are also energeti-cally combating criminal activities and ter-rorism, and that is why we would like tostrengthen cooperation within the region,with Europe and the world. I believe theStability Pact for South Eastern Europe canplay an active and important role in this.

We see the accession of Bosnia-Herzegovina to the Council of Europe asrecognition of our democratic progress,but also as a new obligation and new chal-lenge. In particular, we would like to cre-ate conditions for the full security of ourpeople. That is why we support andencourage the freedom of movement with-out visas. We are also strengthening ourcooperation with the Hague Tribunal andwe would like to promote free public andprivate media.

We believe in partnership witheverybody. We are joining the partnershipfor peace, the radical reduction of militaryefforts in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and associ-ation with the European Union. Finally, webelieve in a new Balkans and stable anddemocratic living conditions for all of us. Iam not saying anything new when I

remind you that there is no progress with-out speeding up economic development inBosnia-Herzegovina and in the Balkans. Inall of this, the role and the importance ofthe media is extremely important. Themedia is the power that truly can changethe Balkans and I am convinced that thisvery Congress will provide an extremelyimportant contribution.

Zivko Radi{i}, Member of the Presidency, Bosnia-Herzegovina

A New Balkans

Page 18: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

CHAIRPERSON

SPEAKERS

INTERVIEWERS

Boris Bergant, Deputy Director-General, RTV Slovenija,Ljubljana

Erhard Busek,Special Coordinator, Stability Pact forSouth Eastern Europe, BrusselsWolfgang Petritsch,High Representative in Bosnia &Herzegovina

Mehmed Husi},Director & Editor-in-Chief, ONASA NewsAgency, SarajevoRemzi Lani,Director, Albanian Media Institute, TiranaRadomir Li~ina,Chairman of the Board/Senior Editor,Danas, BelgradeStjepan Malovi},Vice Dean, Faculty of Political Science,University of Zagreb;Director, International Center forEducation of Journalists, Zagreb

“The reaction of the European communi-ty with regard to the downfall of the oldYugoslavia was that things should stay asthey are. The community said, we willgive you money if you keep the oldYugoslavia. I think that is always thereaction. Let us do it with money.”

Erhard Busek

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r tS l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a18

Friday, 10 May 2002

SESSION II

WHAT WENTWRONG INTHE BALKANS?Grand Hotel Union

Page 19: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r t S l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a 19

It is a pleasure to chair such a dis-tinguished panel. Unfortunately, I have toexcuse Mr. Bernard Kouchner, who wasnot able to get away from Paris, due to thepolitical changes affecting his office,among others.

Introducing the topic, we have cho-sen the title “What Went Wrong in theBalkans?” and I cannot help but drawsome parallels from history. Our guests,both from Austria, are Dr. Erhard Busekand Dr. Wolfgang Petritsch, names that donot strike one’s ear as German, but standas a symbol of a common past.

The eighty-eighth anniversary ofthe assassination of Crown Prince FranzFerdinand will come about in little lessthen two months. It was an event that notonly triggered the First World War, but also ended the presence of the Austro-Hungarian empire in Central Europe andreduced that empire to a small Austrianstate, which many predicted would not beable to survive. Today, we face much thesame dilemma regarding the fitness for sur-vival of some of the states established onthe ruins of former Yugoslavia.

In April 1941, the German army, inthe service of its Nazi masters, attackedYugoslavia, the successor of the Austro-Hungarian empire in this region. TheGerman army recruited a remarkableamount of Austrians, since the Austrianswere supposed to be specialists in dealingwith people from this area. Many peoplein the occupied Balkans were appalled bythe return of the Austrians in such a con-text. A shadow of this is cast even upon thepresent generation. One need only look atthe events surrounding Kurt Waldheim.

For these reasons, it is even more ofa great pleasure and honour to introduceour guests, who are living proof of a newAustria that has learned from the lessons ofits past.

Both of them stand for, and arespreading, an utterly different mission.They are both perfect examples of a newnoble and dignified generation of Austrianstatesmen who do not look upon the

Balkans as a testing ground of their powersor space for healing their historical com-plexes, but as an opportunity and moralobligation to contribute to a better futureof the region by facilitating prosperity.

The unrest in the Balkans cannot bein the interest of anybody, especially not ofits neighbours. If, in the past, one washappy about the death of one’s neigh-bour’s cow, the new generation knows bet-ter, namely that your neighbour’s hardshipis also your own. This attitude has beenproven many times, for example in theform of truly touching humanitarian aidprojects, including the Austrian Broad-casting Corporation’s “Nachbarn in Not”(Neighbours in Need). Both our guestshave, through their broad knowledge andexperience, significantly contributed to thebuilding of a new vision for this part ofEurope and thus for their own homeland.

After an eminent career in Austria,where he held some of the most importantoffices in the country, Dr. Erhard Busek hasfor the last decade intensively involvedhimself in international mediation. Hisfunction as the Special Co-ordinator of theStability Pact represents a high-point of hiscareer and an affirmation of his pastendeavours.

Furthermore, I have the pleasure tointroduce Dr. Wolfgang Petritsch, the high-est-ranking Austrian-Slovene in diplomacyand politics. I have followed his profes-sional and diplomatic career with delightever since he took up his job underChancellor Bruno Kreisky. I am probablyrevealing no secret when I say that, afterthe end of his mission in Sarajevo, he isbeing considered as the likely candidatefor the future Austrian foreign minister.

Boris Bergant, Deputy Director-General, RTVSlovenija, Ljubljana

Parallels FromHistory

Page 20: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

First, let me say that I am not verymuch in favour of talking about “theBalkans”. The reason is there is onlyone state which can be said to be aBalkan state. This is Bulgaria, becausethe Balkan mountains are there. Theexpression used in politics, “Balkani-sation”, is not a very friendly expres-sion, because “Balkanisation” stands fordifficulties and division. Therefore, Iprefer to speak about South East Europe.

As a Viennese, I am aware thatthe famous Fürst von Metternich, whodominated the Congress of Vienna in1815, said the Balkans began at theRennweg. For those of you who are notfamiliar with Vienna, the Rennwegleads from the centre of the city, theRingstrasse, in the direction of SouthEast Europe. But Metternich’s palacewas also on the Rennweg and I think hewas also partly responsible for thingsthat happened in the Balkans, for exam-ple, if I look at the Greek uprising in1821 and the reaction of the so-calledHoly Alliance.

I do not want to start with theentire history of the Balkans, because itis a long story. But if you want to startwith history, you have to mention 1989.The fall of the Iron Curtain was verywell received, but there were no blue-prints existing for such a case. I thinkthere were a lot of declamations in thedocuments of the Treaty of Rome regar-ding the European integration process.Every European country can enter thiscommunity, and so on. But there wereno blueprints. I think the impressionwas, “Fine, now the other part of Europecan have democracy and a free marketeconomy, and if they work a little bitmore than they did in the past, thingswill go very well.” In reality, I thinkwhat has happened in so-called EasternEurope has changed the western part ofEurope tremendously, and it has cer-tainly changed South East Europe.

This lack of preparation, this lackof blueprints, could also be witnessed in

the Balkans, because nobody had a realconcept or strategy. The reaction of theEuropean community with regard to thedownfall of the old Yugoslavia was thatthings should stay as they are. The com-munity said, we will give you money ifyou keep the old Yugoslavia. I think thatis always the reaction. Let us do it withmoney.

That is also my problem con-cerning the Stability Pact, becausesometimes it is seen as a kind of musicbox. You put money in and the music -stability - comes out, and I think that isnot the right approach. Without anydoubt, money is necessary, but youneed a political concept, political blue-prints. You need political engagement,you need some leading ideas, you needa certain kind of empathy. And I thinkthis empathy was missing. For example,a lot of Austrians and Germans used togo on holidays to the Dalmatian coast,and the perception of many people inmy country was that the old Yugoslaviawas a comparatively liberal country.Nobody was aware of the real situation,nobody was really aware of the tensionsexisting within Yugoslavia.

And I think that is the next point.The first was no blueprints existing forwhat happened in 1989. The next pointwas that the perception of the regionwas not a very differentiated one. It wasquite clear that the former Yugoslaviawas not the Soviet Empire, but I thinkthere was no real approach with regardto existing internal tensions. I think thesame can be said about other countriesin South East Europe, including Ro-mania. For a long time, Nicolae Ceau-sescu and his regime were viewed pos-itively, because Ceausescu opposedMoscow.

So I think what also went wrongis that Europe, especially, reacted toolate. Or let me say, acted too late. Thathas a certain consequence becauseeverything that you do later is moreexpensive. If you do things earlier, I

think it is cheaper. But, I might add,Europe is learning this lesson. I think weare quicker now. For example, if youlook at Macedonia, we are learningquicker.

Apropos Macedonia, if we talkabout what went wrong in the Balkans,the name of the state went wrong. If, in1945, somebody had said to the newly-created Austria, you are not Austria, youare the Former Ostmark of the GermanReich, I think we would not have beenvery pleased. Here you can see whereproblems of understanding exist and Ithink this is a part of the Macedoniancrisis, because if you do have not a realidentity, officially, in a state name, thatis a real problem.

I would also like to mention whatwent well in South East Europe. First ofall, there were reactions and actions.Too late, as I said, and very expensive,but they happened. I think it is a goodsign that the European Union and theinternational community have accepteda certain responsibility. I think one cango on and on about how Europe and theAmericans were unable to do the rightthing, especially in Bosnia, but thatleads to nothing. I think there are com-mon efforts and the Stability Pact is asymbol of that because the internation-al community is very much involved. Itis done in cooperation with memberstates of the European Union, non-EUmembers in Europe like Switzerlandand Norway, as well as the UnitedStates, Canada, and Japan. I think that isa very good symbol.

Secondly, this has been a learn-ing process for Europe. Because everycrisis in the Balkans has resulted in anew action by the European Union.Without the Bosnian war, horrible as itwas, we would not have the CommonForeign and Security Policy. And wewould not have Javier Solana. I think wehave learned some lessons and aremoving in the right direction. Similarly,without the Kosovo war we would not

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r tS l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a20

Erhard Busek, Special Coordinator, Stability Pactfor South Eastern Europe, Brussels

A Lack ofBlueprints

Page 21: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r t S l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a 21

have the discussion about a rapid reac-tion force. That, too, has to be seen onthe positive side.

Another thing, and perhaps themost important on the positive side, isthat in the Stability Pact every country ofthe region has a European perspective.It is written quite clearly in the StabilityPact that they shall be members of theEuropean Union. This is a real reasonfor transformation in these countries, forcross-border cooperation, and so on.This is a very effective instrument.

Another positive example: OnMay 8, we opened in Belgrade a centrefor destroying small arms and lightweapons. It was opened by the foreign

minister of the Federal Republic ofYugoslavia, Goran Svilanovic, and bythe co-chair of Working Table III(Security Issues) of the Stability Pact,Ambassador Vladimir Drobnjak ofCroatia. Could you imagine, some yearsbefore, that something like that wouldbe possible? That is a very good symbol.And I think that it is at this level thatthings are coming together.

Given the historical backgroundof this region, I must say that I admirehow things are progressing in such avery short time. I think it is not verygood that we are always blaming thecountries of the region, the politicians ofthe region, the media people, the intel-

lectuals, for what is wrong and what isnot going well, because the learningprocess in other parts of Europe hasbeen quite a long one and we have notyet learned all our lessons. Therefore, Ithink it is justified not only to ask whatwent wrong in the Balkans, but also tosay, what went well until now.

A Lack of Blueprints

Page 22: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

Some of you might know that on27 May I am stepping down as the HighRepresentative of the InternationalCommunity for Bosnia-Herzegovina,handing over to my successor, LordPaddy Ashdown. So please forgive meif I am in a reflective mood. Over thelast few weeks, I have looked back onthe three tough years that I have spentin Bosnia-Herzegovina to see if any-thing has changed.

As Austria’s ambassador toBelgrade and the European Union’sspecial envoy during the war in Kosovofrom 1998-99, I had plenty of opportu-nity to see “what went wrong in theBalkans”. And I want to examine theimportant role played by the media,both by domestic and foreign interna-tional media, in the wars that have con-vulsed this troubled region.

But I also want to take you on ashort tour of what has happened duringmy mandate in Bosnia-Herzegovina, acountry that suffered more than anyother after the collapse of Josip Tito’sYugoslavia. For Bosnia-Herzegovinashows not only what went wrong in theBalkans, but what can also go right.

The destructive role the state-runmedia played in bringing war first toSlovenia, then Croatia, Bosnia andHerzegovina and finally Yugoslavia, iswell documented.

Ordinary people were preparedto see the most monstrous acts carriedout as they were dressed up in hideousuntruths pumped out by broadcastersand newspapers who followed the bid-ding of a Slobodan Milo{evi} or FranjoTudjman with alarming readiness. Thedrivel I had to read and listen to fromthe pro-Milo{evi} media in Belgradewas sickening.

My faith in that country’s hopesof ever reforming were kept alive byprecious islands of sanity such as thecartoons by Corax (he drew one ofMilo{evi}’s wife, Mira, hanging para-militaries on a Christmas tree). What

also gave me hope were a few coura-geous print media, such as Danas - wehave here today its co-founder and sen-ior editor Radomir Li~ina - whichreported against the incoming tide ofnationalism.

Living in a relative democracy, itis hard to believe that such obviouspropaganda could ever have any effecton one. But it does. So many of my Serbfriends found it difficult, after nearly adecade of disinformation, to knowwhat to believe under Milo{evi}.

It took my experience inBelgrade to understand how the char-acter of Winston Smith, broken at theend of George Orwell’s “1984”, couldbe happy in the belief that two plus twoequals five. Like an enzyme speeds upa chemical reaction many times over,so it was with many of the state-runmedia in the Balkans which stoked firesof ethnic hatred. As Orwell also wrotein his essay, “Notes on Nationalism”,lies and untruths are essential in play-ing the ethnic card: “Nationalism ispower hunger tempered by self-decep-tion. Every nationalist is capable of themost flagrant dishonesty, but he is also,since he is conscious of serving some-thing bigger than himself, unshakeablycertain of being right.”

One of the tricks dictators use tofool their own citizens and visitors fromoutside is to swamp their states withradio and television stations and news-papers at both local and national levels,giving the appearance of a diverse civicsociety. For example, Bosnia-Herzegovina, when I arrived in 1999,still had close to 300 broadcasters.

This Babel of broadcasters andnewspapers then systematically sets outto hijack the past to doubly disorienteven the most discerning and cynical ofreaders. Orwell again: “Every national-ist is haunted by the belief that the pastcan be altered. He spends part of histime in this fantasy world in whichthings happen as they should... and he

will transfer fragments of this world tothe history books wherever possible.”

These concerns have been at theforefront of media reform in Bosnia-Herzegovina. This week, the news serv-ice of the public broadcasting servicewas launched. A station independent ofstate control run by Bosnians, Serbs andCroats, which will beam news andother programmes into homes acrossboth entities. I believe the station willbe crucial in helping reintegrate thecountry. Public broadcasting will pro-mote, as far as possible, a criticalexchange of ideas and information,which should help rid Bosnia of thelack of real information which has keptthe fears of many citizens alive longafter the war ended.

Fear and the ignorance neededto sustain it are the life force of nation-alism. Again, Orwell saw this perfectly:“The general uncertainty as to what isreally happening makes it easier tocling to lunatic beliefs. Since nothing isever quite proved or disproved, themost unmistakable fact can be impu-dently denied.”

The problems are different forthe media in the established Westerndemocracies. There it is convincingtheir - for the most part - well-off read-ers that they have a stake in a peacefulBalkans, Middle East, Afghanistan orwherever.

One private complaint amongjournalists covering the war in Kosovowas that ever-increasing body countsand larger massacres were needed towin space in their papers back home.And that in covering conflicts andunrest, there is seldom space or interestin what happens after the big networkshave moved on to some other war. Thisis unhelpful in framing the debate onwhat action might or might not betaken by a reader’s or listener’s govern-ment.

This, as Orwell attests, is not arecent phenomenon: “The calamities

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r tS l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a22

Wolfgang Petritsch, High Representative in Bosnia & Herzegovina

What Can Go Right

Page 23: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r t S l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a 23

that are constantly being reported - bat-tles, massacres, famines, revolutions -tend to inspire in the average person afeeling of unreality.” I think perhaps wehave not succeeded, as internationalinstitutions, in communicating clearlywhere we have succeeded and wherewe have failed, earning only the distrustof the media.

A case in point might be the vet-eran Newsweek correspondent whocovered the war in Bosnia-Herzegovinaand who wrote after the Dutch govern-ment’s recent resignation over theSrebrenica massacre that nothing hadchanged much since the war’s end, Themain culprits for the massacre were stillat large and most refugees had yet toreturn to their homes.

On the first point, I fully agree.The arrest of the Bosnian Serbs’ wartimeleader, Radovan Karadzic, and his mili-tary sidekick, Ratko Mladic, is long,long overdue. I had hoped to see themjoin their erstwhile “Godfather”,Slobodan Milo{evi}, to face the warcrimes tribunal in The Hague. Bosniansand Herzegovinians will never be ableto look firmly into what is now, Ibelieve, a bright future without dealingproperly with its troubled recent past.But I disagree with the correspondenton refugee return. This, probably morethan any other area in Bosnia-Herzegovina, shows that for all theinternational community’s gross neglectat the beginning of the conflict, its even-tual engagement after Dayton hasbrought results. I will speak of returnson the short tour of Bosnia-HerzegovinaI promised earlier.

When I arrived to take up mypost in Sarajevo in the summer of 1999,Milo{evi} was bloodied but unbowedafter his climb-down in Kosovo. Hecontinued to pipe nationalist poisoninto the predominantly Serb entity inBosnia-Herzegovina. The same poison,albeit with a different label, flowed infrom the Croatia of Franjo Tudjman.

Implementation of Annex 7 ofthe Dayton Accords - the return of hun-dreds of thousands of refugees and dis-placed people to their homes, vital toredress the crimes of ethnic cleansing -looked impossible. The nationalist par-ties, surviving on that oxygen of ethnicfear, their corrupt elites reaping the ben-efits, meant a poor prognosis for theBosnia-Herzegovina which haddeclared sovereignty in the dark days of1992. The school of thought that pro-fessed Bosnia-Herzegovina to be suffer-ing from “ancient hatreds syndrome”was, until only very recently, recom-mending a redrawing of the borders inthe hope of a cheap, quick exit for theinternational community.

My predecessors as HighRepresentatives, Carl Bildt and CarlosWestendorp, had extremely difficultimmediate post-war pressures to dealwith, but succeeded in setting up theinstitutions that the Dayton PeaceAgreement envisaged. Many of the pos-itive changes that have occurred sincemy arrival have come from outside aswell as inside Bosnia-Herzegovina,notably the disappearance of the “TwinPeaks” of Balkan nationalism. Tudjmandied and Milo{evi} lives today in aprison cell. The presence, day in andday out, of international soldiers andcivilian staff implementing Dayton alsocombined to overcome the politics offear pedalled by the nationalists.

When I arrived, four years afterDayton was signed, the internationalcommunity was looking for a clearstrategy aimed at reaching the end goalof a self-sustainable Bosnia-Herze-govina in the not too distant future. Myresponse was in two key areas.

Firstly, it was clear that we had torestructure our engagement by identify-ing and vigorously pursuing a numberof core tasks, the pillars of the futureself-sustainable Bosnia. I proposedthree priorities. Accelerated refugeereturn to help undo the horrors of the

war and re-integrate the deeply dividedcountry; a more robust approach toinstitution building, to turn Bosnia-Herzegovina into a functioning statethat would be able to integrate intoEurope; and economic reform as theengine to drive all this.

Secondly, we had to start givingback the country to its elected represen-tatives and citizens. 50 years ofCommunism imposed from Belgrade, adeeply traumatising war and theDayton Peace Agreement - an accordthat was confusing as it produced nowinners and no losers - had resulted inresignation and a general feeling that“the international community should fixit all”.

This had to change to what I call“ownership”, local responsibility. TheBosnians and Herzegovinians, the topofficials as well as the ordinary personin the street, had to accept that Bosnia-Herzegovina was their country and ulti-mately their problem to solve. We werethere to assist, but not to be in chargeforever.

The first half of my mandatecould be termed “highly intervention-ist”. I used my powers to remove offi-cials from office who were workingagainst Dayton implementation. In late1999, I removed more officials in oneday (22 who were blocking returns)than my predecessor had during hisentire mandate. I sent a clear messageto the nationalist old guard that theDayton Agreement was not simply apiece of paper to salve guilty Westernconsciences, but a living documentwhich charted the way to a democratic,tolerant and multi-ethnic state inEurope.

There is a way to measure thesuccess of the peace effort - throughcounting refugee returns. Up until1999, the rate of return meant it wouldhave taken decades to implementAnnex 7. In particular, the RS RepublikaSrpska, was defending its mono-ethnic

What Can Go Right

Page 24: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

structure, having allowed only 10,000Bosnian and Croats to return and scar-ing even those few with frequent vio-lence.

Alongside the removal of offi-cials, I began to impose new laws thatgot rid of legal loopholes in Bosnia’sproperty laws; loopholes that preventedpeople from repossessing their pre-warhomes; loopholes which directly bene-fited the architects of ethnic cleansing.Minority returns, that is, where arefugee or displaced person returns toan area where she or he is in a minori-ty, leapt to 67,000 in 2000, increasingby another 36 per cent to 92,000 in2001. If the current rate of refugeereturn continues, Annex 7 could beimplemented in its entirety within fouryears. What seemed an impossibility in1999 is now reality.

What greatly concerns me still isthe lack of assistance provided forreturnees to rebuild their homes. Thedomestic authorities give some help butthis is far below what is needed.International assistance has declinedsharply. We cannot allow returns to faildue to a lack of assistance.

The issue of jobs for returneeswill be resolved once the economic sit-uation improves. Bosnia has a steep hillto climb but the ingredients for eco-nomic recovery are in place, namely, astable, single currency tied to the Euro;the privatisation process well under-way; modern banking laws that havescrapped the corrupt, Communist-eramonopolies on financial services thathelped fund the nationalist parties; lawson standardisation so that Bosnia-Herzegovina can export goods to therich markets of the European Union,which has waived duties and tariffs onBosnian goods.

Today’s Bosnia-Herzegovina cle-arly resembles a proper state. The StateGovernment, the so-called Council ofMinisters, grew from three to six min-istries. I imposed a State Border Service

which intercepts smuggled goods andillegal immigrants. I established a State-level Court. Most of these achievementsin state building are the work of the“Alliance for Change” coalition which,after the elections in 2000, replaced thenationalist parties at State level and inthe Federation. In the RS, the SDSfounded by Radovan Karadzic was stillstrong, but agreed to give the premier-ship to the reformist economist MladenIvanic.

The Alliance put serious eco-nomic reform on its agenda. It activelyjoined the global fight against terrorismafter September 11, proving that Bosniaand Herzegovina was not willing to har-bour terrorists. Firstly, as foreign minis-ter and now as prime minister, ZlatkoLagumdzija, during his frequent visitsabroad, presented a new Bosnia-Herzegovina, a state that wanted to berecognised as a responsible and inde-pendent player, not a “failed state”.

This new found responsibility inBosnia’s politicians can also be meas-ured. In the period from my arrival in1999 to the formation of a working stategovernment in March 2001, I made 146Decisions, amending or imposing newlaws and removing 56 obstructive offi-cials from their posts. Since that time, Ihave issued only 60 Decisions and haveremoved only seven officials.

My last big intervention, perhapsthe biggest during my mandate, was theremoval in 2001 of Ante Jelavic from hispost as the Croat member of thePresidency along with the dismissal ofthree other HDZ officials who had sup-ported him in declaring “Croat self-rule” in Bosnia-Herzegovina. A fewweeks later, I imposed the “ProvisionalAdministration” on HercegovackaBanka where dubious transactions weretaking place. As it proved during aninvestigation, in which several of mystaff were subject to violent attack, thebank would have been the financialbackbone of “Croat self-rule.”

The illegal and unconstitutionaldeclaration of “Croat self-rule” has, inmy term, been the greatest threat to theDayton process. Thanks to our deter-mined reaction, Jelavic had to publiclyacknowledge the failure of this projectat the HDZ Congress last October. Heand the other individuals I removedgave up their party offices in order toallow the HDZ to register for theupcoming elections. I hope that a newand moderate HDZ will emerge fromthis process.

The powers vested in a HighRepresentative make that official almosta benevolent dictator. This, I believedright from the start of my mandate, wasin the short term necessary to uprootentrenched resistance and create theframework for democracy to work. But Iknew in the long term it would workagainst the whole point of post-warinternational engagement in Bosnia-Herzegovina, namely, to have the coun-try stand on its own feet. Debate insideand outside my office constantly veeredbetween those who would take a maxi-malist approach - impose everythingand be done with it - and those whofeared that robust action would kill civilsociety in an already weak state.

In my daily work, I had to takeboth paths. I believe that the robustinterventions during the first half of mymandate were necessary to help the for-ward-looking forces surface.

But one piece of legislation thatalways got special treatment and con-sideration was Bosnia’s Election Law. Ibelieved it should never be imposed. Itspassage or non-passage onto the statuebook would be the yardstick measuringthe ability of Bosnia’s parties to find acompromise.

It was worth the wait. TheAlliance for Change government passedthe Election Law in August last year,paving the way for Bosnia’s accession tothe Council of Europe late last month,which is yet another milestone demon-

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r tS l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a24

What Can Go Right

Page 25: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r t S l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a 25

strating the country’s growing statehoodand level of democratisation. AndBosnia-Herzegovina authorities are noworganising their own elections slated forOctober 5.

But let me now tell you what Iwill always consider the ultimate proofthat Bosnia-Herzegovina has entered anew era. This stems from the recentamendments of the Entity Constitutions.As you may know, the RS Constitutionrecognised only the Serbs as a con-stituent people, while the FederationConstitution only recognised Bosniansand Croats. In 2000, the ConstitutionalCourt of BiH declared these provisionsunconstitutional.

It took almost two years and thenclose to 100 hours of very hard negotia-tions under my auspices for the leadingparties of Bosnia-Herzegovina to reachthe so-called Mrakovica-SarajevoAgreement of March 27, 2002, whichserved as the framework for the amend-ments. True, I had to complete theprocess because the SDA and HDZ pre-vented the necessary two-third majority

in the Federation, and the RS could notbring itself to accept three small details.

But the Alliance parties and theRS leadership had done most of thework on their own, thus acknowledgingthe necessity to negotiate a compro-mise. And the RS has accepted that itcan no longer exclude Bosnians, Croatsand other non-Serb citizens from its leg-islative, executive and judicial institu-tions and other decision-making processin this Entity.

This is of monumental impor-tance. The ability to compromise is theessence of a democracy. Here it finallyhappened. And I am sure you realisewhat it means for the RS leadership toacknowledge that the RS cannot remainan exclusivist, mono-ethnic structure.

The effects of the amendmentswill reach into the lives of every Bosnia-Herzegovina citizen, turning the twoEntities into multi-ethnic communitieswhich guarantee full representation and input for all nationalities at everylevel of government and public admi-nistration.

I would say to the critics of inter-national intervention that, yes, we dohave our own interests, an interest in astable Bosnia-Herzegovina, a stableBalkans which must be given everyencouragement to join the Europeanfamily of states.

We must hold out the highestexpectations and hopes for our neigh-bours, for September 11 demonstratesonly too well what happens if we turnour backs on poverty and injustice.George Soros is a hard-headed business-man but he sees all too clearly the perilsof looking only at the bottom line, writ-ing this month on globalisation, “Wecannot build a global society withouttaking into account moral considera-tions.”

International engagement works.Look at Bosnia-Herzegovina and youcan see that for yourselves.

What Can Go Right

Page 26: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

CHAIRPERSON

SPEAKERS

INTERVIEWERS

Janne Virkkunen, Senior Editor-in-Chief, HelsinginSanomat, Helsinki

Graham Avery,Chief Adviser, Directorate-General forEnlargement, European Commission,BrusselsJan Kohout, Political Director, Ministry of ForeignAffairs, Czech RepublicLojze Peterle,Member of the Praesidium, EuropeanConvention; former Prime Minister andMinister of Foreign Affairs of SloveniaJanez Poto~nik, Minister for European Affairs, SloveniaBéla Szombati,Undersecretary of State, Ministry ofForeign Affairs, BudapestJan Truszczynski,Chief EU Negotiator, Ministry of ForeignAffairs, Poland

Michael Ehrenreich,Editor-in-Chief, Berlingske Tidende, CopenhagenPaul Lendvai, Editor-in-Chief, Europäische Rundschau,Vienna

“We have made enormous progress withregard to respecting the political and economic reforms in the countries ofCentral Europe and here I would like to pay tribute to their people and their governments. These reforms have beenmade by them, not by us in Brussels,although the leverage of EU membershiphas been extraordinarily important indriving this process.”

Graham Avery

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r tS l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a26

Saturday, 11 May 2002

SESSION IIIEU Enlargement- What PriceAccession?Grand Hotel Union

Page 27: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r t S l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a 27

The European Union (EU) is avoluntary framework for political andeconomic integration, based on theexperience of nationalism - twoEuropean civil wars in the 20th century- and the wish of nations to regain sov-ereignty by cooperating in Europe-widepolicies and speaking with one voice inthe world.

I want to remind you that alreadywhen the European Community was setup there were visionaries like RobertSchumann who were thinking of ourcolleagues and friends in the East.Already in 1963, Schumann wrote, “Wemust build the united Europe not only inthe interest of the free peoples, but alsoin order to welcome in it the peoplesfrom Eastern Europe who, freed from therepression under which they live, willwant to join and seek our moral sup-port.” That vision today is beingrealised.

The magnetism of the EU is suchthat it was successively enlarged. First,from six to nine, then from nine to 12and most recently to 15. But now we arefaced with more people than ever beforewho want to join us. We have 13 officialcandidates, i.e., the ten countries ofCentral and Eastern Europe, the twoislands of Malta and Cyprus, and alsoTurkey. But we must not forget the oth-ers. The French have an expression, “Untrain peut en cacher un autre” (one traincan conceal another), and we must notforget that after this enlargement thereare many other European countries whowant to join us. For example, our threeEFTA friends. One day perhaps Norwaywill try again, and there is Iceland andSwitzerland. And then, nearer to here,we have the five other countries whichemerged from ex-Yugoslavia, plusAlbania. So we easily reach an EU of 35before we even discuss the delicatequestion of whether Ukraine, Belarus oreven one day Russia could be members.

Why do these countries want tojoin? At least for the Central Europeans

the principal motivation was a politicalone. They sought the confirmation ofrejoining the European family as soon asthey escaped from the grip of Moscow.This was not just a sentimental choice, itwas also to make irreversible the choiceof pluralist democracy and the marketeconomy. The second motive was secu-rity. Of course, these countries all wantto join NATO, and it is easier to joinNATO, but the EU offers a securityadvantage, not simply through itsembryonic common foreign and securi-ty policy, but through the bondingmechanisms of its institutions. Last butnot least, the countries want the eco-nomic advantages of the EU’s market,policies and budget.

What reply have we given? InCopenhagen (June 1993), the EU madethe historic promise that those countrieswho wish, shall join. This was the firsttime in history we promised member-ship to countries even before theyapplied. At the same time, we definedthe criteria for membership, the so-called “Copenhagen Criteria”, which arepolitical, economic and administrative.

The political criteria do notexplicitly mention freedom of the press,but it is implicit in our concept ofdemocracy and the rule of law, and it isnot a coincidence that our Hungarianfriends still have a problem closing oneof the chapters of the negotiationsbecause of difficulties about the com-patibility of their media law.

We have proceeded with thisenlargement on two main tracks. Thefirst track is the preparation “on theground” in each of the country, with apre-accession strategy and financial aidfrom the EU. The second track is thenegotiations in Brussels, where we haveagreement on a “road map” that willbring them to a conclusion by the end ofthis year.

The negotiations sometimes getmore attention from the press than thereally important part, which is preparing

to be good members. The objective,therefore, is for us to have the first newmembers ready to take part in the elec-tions to the European Parliament in June2004.

What progress have we made sofar? We have made enormous progresswith regard to respecting the politicaland economic reforms in the countriesof Central Europe and here I would liketo pay tribute to their people and theirgovernments. These reforms have beenmade by them, not by us in Brussels,although the leverage of EU member-ship has been extraordinarily importantin driving this process.

In the negotiations, there are 31chapters, and ten countries have nowclosed between 21 and 27 chapters. Tencountries could be ready, but notBulgaria and Romania, who need moretime and more help.

The problems remaining in thenegotiations are, not surprisingly, thebudget-related chapters. These are thechapters relating to agriculture (wherewe have to define quotas for productionand direct payments to farmers), region-al policy, and payments into the budget.

We also have an institutionalchapter, which is in itself not very diffi-cult, but we have a need for our Irishfriends to ratify the Nice Treaty beforewe can conclude that. So we now havea good, firm calendar and we expect toconclude the negotiations this year. OurDanish friends, who have the presiden-cy of the EU in the second half of thisyear, already invented the slogan, “FromCopenhagen to Copenhagen”, becausethey want the December summit inCopenhagen to finalise all the remainingproblems.

Next year, in 2003, we shouldhave a Treaty of Accession, which willrequire ratification by the 15 EU mem-ber countries. Following the ratification,up to ten new members will hold refer-endums and this should lead to enlarge-ment of the EU in 2004.

Graham Avery, Chief Adviser, Directorate-Generalfor Enlargement, EuropeanCommission, Brussels

Reuniting Our Continent

Page 28: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I talked about the two maintracks for enlargement and I want tomention a third track, which is commu-nication. Public opinion is vitallyimportant, especially when we have ref-erendums coming up in these countries.There is positive support for enlarge-ment of the EU, but there are alsodoubts and questions. In the 15 memberstates, 51 per cent were in favour ofenlargement. In the 13 applicant coun-tries, 65 per cent said they would say“yes” in a referendum.

The European Commission isdeveloping a communication strategyin order to explain to the public in thecurrent and future member states whythe EU is about to undertake its largestand most ambitious enlargement so far,and what the consequences of this stepare likely to be. But the most importanteffort has to come from the govern-ments of the countries concerned.

There are three big questions fac-ing Europeans. First, what do we wish todo together, what are the policies thatwe want to pursue? Secondly, how dowe want to do these things? That is theinstitutional and constitutional debate.Thirdly, with whom do we want to doit? What are the future limits of thisEurope?

Let me say, very briefly, that thisenlargement of up to ten countries willincrease the population by 20 per centand the economic product by four percent. That means we are looking at newpolicy challenges in the areas of soli-darity - the willingness of the richercountries to show cohesion and helpthe economic convergence of the poor-er countries - and proximity, particular-ly with regard to frontiers and relationswith new neighbours.

Let me conclude, if I may, by say-ing a word about our host country, which

is not Balkan. It is an Alpine country inthe Alpine phase of accession, whichwants to preserve its identity, its lan-guage, its culture in the EU. I can tellyou that we are planning for Slovenianto be spoken, read and understood inBrussels. We think of this country as abridge for the Balkan countries whowant to join and one day will do so.

My summary is that we are ontrack for the enlargement and the keydecisions will take place at the end ofthis year, but we need to inform thepublic and that is where I think you inthe business of communication have animportant responsibility to be balancedand objective.

Enlarging the EU means extend-ing the peace, prosperity and securitythat we have enjoyed in the West. Itmeans reuniting our continent andbuilding Europe together.

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r tS l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a28

Reuniting Our Continent

Page 29: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r t S l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a 29

Allow me to briefly evaluate somelegal and economic aspects of the CzechRepublic’s preparation for EU accession.The harmonisation of laws, the adoption ofthe Acquis Communautaire, has been takenas a fact by the Czech Republic and in themajority of cases the adoption ofCommunity regulations has been consid-ered as a positive matter strengthening theunstable legal environment in the post-Revolution years. It is necessary to be awareof the immense gulf between the legalorders of the former non-democraticregimes and the developed and logicalstructure of the legal environment of theEuropean Union. In certain areas, it was notpossible to implement the harmonisation ofregulations in one go, as circumstancesrequired gradual amendments of nationallegislation.

The Acquis, however, has always hasbeen a great legislative model connected tothe expectation of the Czech citizens thatthey will function under the same condi-tions as other citizens of the Union. For thisreason and with this motivation, all authori-ties are overcoming the complex legislativetransformation. It has of course not beeneasy to deal with such a quantity of new leg-islation often setting out and establishingcompletely new institutes and changingpractices that have been operating fordecades.

The deviations from the completeadoption of the Acquis are difficult todefine. It is arguable as to whether they suf-ficiently and justly deal with the concerns ofthe public. On the other hand, they definite-ly call into doubt the credibility of the EUand the principal of equality within the EU,and what is more they make it more difficultfor Czech politicians to build public confi-dence in the overall European structure.

Allow me to systematically andbriefly outline the basic problems in theadoption to EC law. In the case of executivegovernmental authority, the main instrumentfor monitoring and controlling the harmoni-sation has become the so-called govern-mental plan of legislative work, a detailed

plan of government in which legal regula-tions connected with the EU law are clearlyindicated.

These regulations have recently beenprepared, preferentially and in advance, asit has been necessary to take into accountthe retardation of legislative activity result-ing from the general elections in June of thisyear. A similar plan is also prepared for non-legislative tasks. The level of compatibilityof the submitted governmental proposal wasnot at the outset always of the required stan-dard. By means of its decree of March 2000,the government stated that all new legisla-tive drafts must include an evaluation oftheir relevance to EC law. And in a positivecase, the stated requirement was full com-patibility. The one acceptable exception isconsidered the negotiation of transitionalperiods and provisions which are connectedwith the actual accession of the CzechRepublic to the EU. It is therefore not possi-ble to bring their coming into effect with thereference date of January 2003.

At the end of 2001, the governmentdecided on the preparation of a comprehen-sive revision of all undertakings in the rela-tion to the EU that the Czech Republic stillhas to fulfil. All the relevant documents andsources of possible obligations of the CzechRepublic were checked, including acces-sion partnership, the government’s plan oflegislative and non-legislative work, as wellas conclusions of the EuropeanCommission’s Regular Report of 2001. Theresult is a coherent table giving a legislativeand non-legislative overview that containswhat we hope to be a comprehensive sum-mary of the tasks that have yet to be fulfilled.Apart from the harmonisation of legislation,the areas of public administration, the judi-ciary and the fulfilment of the so-called“Copenhagen Criteria” were also reviewed.

With regard to the work of the par-liament and the harmonisation of legisla-tion, the biggest problem from the start ofthe negotiations proved to be the lack ofawareness regarding the priority of the har-monisation of laws and the frequent amend-ments proposed which led to a reduction in

the level of compatibility of submitted laws.The first problem has been sufficiently over-come in part by the education of membersof parliament in order that harmonisationbills be debated on a priority basis and alsoby the willingness to debate part of this leg-islation in using a so-called fast track debateprocedure.

In past years, European Commissioncriticism, in the form of its Regular Report,has focused on the drawn-out work, poorfunctioning and lack of transparency in theorganisation of the public administration. Ican now note with pleasure that the RegularReport explicitly praised the progress of theCzech Republic in enforcing the lawthrough the courts. This positive develop-ment

was the result in particular of thesimplification of procedures and theincreasing of the staff levels of the courts.Another confirmation of the positive trend isthe reform of the public administration,which has been achieved, and the adoptionof the Act on State Service.

The transformation of the economytogether with the adoption and implementa-tion of the Acquis represent the expenditureof billions of Czech Crowns over a relative-ly short period. The adoption of Europeanlegislation and its introduction to practicerequires the strengthening of the administra-tive and legal systems and dramatic infra-structure changes in order to comply withthe standards of the European Union. Thearea of the environment can be taken as atypical example.

Another issue is the growth inexpenses in the area of social policy, in par-ticular with the solving of the problems ofcertain groups within the population such asthe elderly and the poorly qualified, whichwill be necessary to take after the EU acces-sion. In this context, it is necessary to bear inmind that the majority of these expenseswould have to be expended in the futureregardless of the EU accession. It is realisticto expect that in the medium term theexpenses incurred would be compensatedby the advantages of EU membership.

Jan Kohout,Political Director, Ministry ofForeign Affairs, Czech Republic.

Adopting the Acquis

Page 30: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

The European Convention is anunique attempt which has never takenplace in European history. We have neverhad such a grand exercise. Never beforehave so many nations in freedom, democ-racy and in peace decided upon theircommon future. The European Unionneeds institutional reforms, not only dueto enlargement, but also due to internalreasons and because of some externalchallenges.

So far, we have had three sessions.Historic words were said. Many partici-pants spoke in a very general way. Theboring part of the Convention is maybealso the most promising part of theConvention, because the boring part is theone where the Members keep repeatingthe same sentences about the Euro, abouthome and foreign security policies, andother issues. This part shows the directionand the possible consensus of theConvention. Of course, there are ideaswhich are quite different, but until now Iwould say that we have not really had anyrevolutionary ideas on the future ofEurope.

So I think now we are matureenough to get to a new level in our work.In the last session of the Praesidium work-ing groups were established on subsidiari-ty, the Chapter of Fundamental Rights,legal personality, national parliaments,competences, and so on. In addition,seven groups were formed in order tostructure the debate on the so-called CivilForum.

Europe is full of different concepts.We have the concept of the Europe ofNations, the Europe of Homelands, theEurope of Regions and the Europe of Statesbut the common denominator of all theseconcepts is the Europe of Citizens. I ammore than glad that the Convention isemphasising so much the role of the citi-zens and I am particularly glad thatSlovenia was one of the first countries toestablish its own National Civil Forum,which tries to follow the agenda of theConvention in Brussels. I would like to say

also that the 13 candidate States wouldlike to be fully involved in all the pro-ceedings or dimensions of the work of theConvention. We are already fully involvedin the parliamentary part of theConvention and in the governmental sideas well.

There are different expectationsabout the desires of the Convention.Maybe the Convention will not take revo-lutionary steps or big steps, but, on theother hand, I am also convinced that notonly cosmetic improvements will bedone. I see more will to make radicalreforms on the side of the candidate Statesthan on the Western part of the former IronCurtain. For ten or 12 years, the candidateStates were doing only reforms. I am notsaying that we are offering our know-howonly to our partners in the Member States.Through our reforms, we are trying toreach the European Union and the Unionis now fortunately taking new stepstogether with us. We have said manytimes that the European Union is not justbuilding a small house for newcomers, butthat we are designing a new house for allof us. I think that this concept should befollowed also when the new inter-govern-mental conference takes place.

It is still open whether theConvention will end with the proposal fora European Constitution or for a EuropeanConstitutional Treaty or if there will beonly amendments to the existing treaties,but I am sure that this Convention will bea success. Europe needs a success. TheConvention has great legitimacy and theinter-governmental conference will notdispose with such legitimacy. I cannotimagine that the inter-governmental con-ference would not respect the desires ofthe Convention.

I would like to end with a remarkconcerning my recent visit to Belgrade,where I was invited by the G17 Institute togive a lecture, entitled “From Europe toEurope”. I was really glad to see so manyyoung, skilled people with a great pro-European spirit. This was for me a particu-

lar experience, but I would like to addonly that they need a lot of attention andthey need a lot of hope.

Fifty-two years ago, RobertSchumann began with the idea of recon-ciliation and we need this idea of recon-ciliation. It should apply to all of Europeand in that respect I am glad that Sloveniais offering all its knowledge and all itsexperience in order to assist those who areinterested in our experiences in approach-ing the European Union.

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r tS l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a30

Lojze Peterle, Member of the Praesidium,European Convention; former Prime Minister and Ministerof Foreign Affairs of Slovenia.

The Europe of Citizens

Page 31: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r t S l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a 31

Like Graham Avery said, we are anAlpine country in the Alpine phase of acces-sion. Let us concentrate first on the currentstate of negotiations and the candidate coun-tries by the number of provisionally closedchapters: Cyprus, 27; Slovenia and Lithuania,26; Czech Republic, 25; Estonia, Hungaryand Slovakia, 24; Latvia and Poland, 23;Malta, 21; Bulgaria, 17; and Romania, 11. Apolitical decision on the European side hasmore or less been reached that up to ten can-didate countries could succeed, but there isno guarantee. As you know, it will be up tothe people in the candidate countries todecide this by referendum.

Why are we in Slovenia and someother countries in such good shape and whyis it good to be in line with the so-called roadmap? First of all, we are the only country thathas succeeded up until the end of last year inconcluding negotiations in line with the roadmap. This was possible because we are asmall and relatively developed country. Ourstrategy was always to stick to “easy group”debates and thus escape possible additionalcomplications in the negotiations. Also, wewould like to be seen as an effective and con-structive country. We are now creating ourfuture image as a European member state.And, last but not least, we are in the most dif-ficult phase of financial negotiations and areaware that one can mainly influence the posi-tion of the European Union before they definetheir common position. We will use the halfyear at our disposal for preparation and dis-cussion of negotiating a position at home andfor explaining our position to the EU memberstates, and also for lobbying.

During the Spanish Presidency, nego-tiations with the candidate countries willfocus on cleaning the so-called “leftovers”from the table, for example, Chapter 13 oninstitutions, and informal negotiations con-cerning financial issues. Also of importanceare the internal negotiations between the EUmember states. They concern the commonposition on chapters including financial issuesand future necessary changes in the commonagricultural policy and structural/cohesionpolicy.

Let us briefly assess the Commission’sfinancial proposal in light of the remainingchapters to be negotiated. There are threesuch chapters: agriculture, regional policyand coordination of structural institutions,and financial and budgetary provisions. Theproposal is in line with general expectationsand the proposed figures are within the strictlimits agreed in Agenda 2000. However, theproposal does not in our view correspond tothe fact that the actual reality is not very muchin line with Agenda 2000 assumptions anddoes not express high political will and deter-mination by the member states for theenlargement.

Without questioning the frameworkagreed in Agenda 2000, we believe that thereis still room for manoeuvre within the agreedlimits. The Commission’s proposal was a hor-izontal one, not taking into account the speci-ficity of the candidate countries. The samecan be said of the approach used in the draftcommon position papers and we expect thesame approach also in the common positionsfor individual candidate countries.

But the real problem is that the candi-date countries acceding today to the Euro-pean Union differ more than in any previousenlargement. This is an extremely difficulttask for the member states. If I try to make achapters assessment then I would say thatthere are some pluses that we can mention.First, the net budgetary position of the candi-date countries must not be worse than in thepre-accession period. Secondly, the possibili-ty to “top-up” direct payments from nationalbudget. Thirdly, the importance given to therural development measures. And fourthly, theincreased share of cohesion funds to one thirdof the total available sum on the global level.

What are the minuses? The approachto the chapters is not balanced. The quota lev-els, without taking into account the existingsituation in the candidate countries, is the sec-ond thing which we think is not proper. Andthirdly, the proposed length of the transitionalperiod in agriculture is affecting the relationsin the next budgetary period.

I will finish with the actual enlarge-ment process. How do we see it? The major

questions which we have to ask ourselves inthis enlargement process are connected to twoissues, political will and public support. Let usfirst focus on the European Union situation. Itstarted with political will in Gothenburg. Themain message that we got from Gothenburg -and it was repeated afterwards in Laeken - wasthat the enlargement process is irreversible.We believe that it is really irreversible.Secondly, in Laeken, the major decision thatwas taken was that that the European Union isdetermined to bring the accession negotiationswith the countries that are ready to a conclu-sion by the end of the year 2002 so that thosecountries can take part as members in theEuropean Parliament elections in 2004. Sopolitical determination in the EU is there.

On the other hand, you have alreadyseen in Mr. Avery’s presentation the support forenlargement of the European Union. On aver-age, 51 per cent of the population are infavour of the applicant countries joining theEU. It is important that this situation remainsstable and I see this situation now as relativelystable. Focusing on my country, Slovenia, thelast progress report was very positive, men-tioning only a few remaining problems. Oneand a half years after parliamentary elections,we have a stable government and the supportfor the EU accession of practically all partiesrepresented in parliament. Public opinion isfalling slightly, but we still have a relativelycomfortable situation in our country. Also,according to EU polls, Slovenia is the onlyapplicant country where most people feel theyare well informed about the EU process.

Finally, the main potential barriers thatwe see are some interest-focused conditions ofthe member states; elections in member statesand candidate countries; attempts to link theoutstanding issues between neighbouringcountries to the process of alignment with theAcquis and the EU accession questions; unrea-sonable attention to the internal problems notimportant and decisive in the EU accessionprocess, which could be exploited to influ-ence public opinion; and last but not leastpublic support in candidate countriesexpressed in negative referendum results.

Janez Poto~nik, Minister for European Affairs,Slovenia

An AlpineCountry in theAlpine Phase ofAccession

Page 32: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

If we look at the EuropeanUnion and Europe today and ask whatthe Union is about, I would say it isabout freedom, security, justice andprosperity. Freedom, meaning democ-racy and rights and diversity and theright to diversity. Security, adding sta-bility in terms internal and external,and also justice and prosperity, includ-ing of course sustainable growth andalso competitiveness on a global scale.

My second point is that if welook at the evolution of the EuropeanUnion, you may remember that in pre-vious years there has been a lot ofdebate about enlargement and deepen-ing, whether one goes against theother, whether the two can go hand inhand. I think we can say that forEurope to be able to build thisEuropean Union that I just tried to out-line, it needs both enlargement anddeepening, because this is the onlyway that we can put an end to the his-toric division of Europe. It is the onlyway that we can sustain the will tohave this area of freedom, security, jus-tice and prosperity and not just sustainthe will to make it stronger but alsomore capable, more able to implementthis area of freedom, security, justiceand prosperity, which is to say we haveto sustain the will and we have toincrease the capability.

Third, for this to happen, Europehas to grow stronger and become moreinfluential. It has to grow stronger with-in and grow more influential in the out-side world. That is, to my understand-ing, the basis of the criteria of enlargingthe European Union, which is, for anycandidate country that wants to joint,to have democracy and the rule of law,to have a functioning and competitivemarket economy and to be able toadopt, implement and enforce theoften-quoted Acquis Communautaire.According to my understanding, this is

what underlies the philosophy and thepractice of the common goal of themember countries and candidatecountries in the European Union,namely to make it possible by the year2004, by the next elections to theEuropean Parliament, for those appli-cant countries that are ready and will-ing to join the European Union, to beable to conclude successfully theiraccession negotiations by the year2002, according to the again often-quoted “road map”. My point here isthat these goals - 2002 and 2004 -need to be kept if Europe is to achievethe goals it has chosen for itself, ifEurope is to grow stronger.

Where is Hungary in this prepa-ration process? Without going intodetails, if you look at the state of rela-tions, trade and economy betweenHungary and the European Union,what you will find is that we arealready a de facto member of theEuropean Union. The level of ourexchanges is higher with the EuropeanUnion then is the case with manycountries who are inside the EuropeanUnion. If we look at the pattern andstructure of these exchanges, you willfind that this is similar to those that youwill find within the European Unionbetween countries belonging to theEuropean Union.

Second, if you look at the politi-cal side - and needless to say this goesfor all candidate countries - Hungaryfulfils the political criteria, but if youlook at the level of political coopera-tion in the field of common, foreignand security policy and European secu-rity and defence policy, you will findthat we have actually gone as far aspossible in the present stage of rela-tions with the European Union. If youlook at our ability to contribute to sus-tainable growth within the EuropeanUnion, then you will find that for the

last five years we have had 4-5 per centgrowth rates in Hungary. If you look atthe pattern of the Hungarian economyyou will find that re-structuring isbehind us. We are not in the process ofre-structuring; it is largely behind usnow and this also goes for agriculture.If you look at our ability to adopt,implement and endorse the Acquis,then you will find that, having spentaround a billion Euros on a yearly basisto get prepared for legal harmonisationand institution-building, we have comevery close and that we will certainly beready by the time of accession to theEuropean Union.

This is the basis for our acces-sion negotiations going on with theEuropean Union, 24 chapters closed,with two left over if we look at the roadmap, one of which my friend GrahamAvery referred to, which is the audio-visual chapter. All I want to say here isthat there has never been a problembetween Hungary and the EuropeanUnion on this issue, because this islargely a problem of internal Hun-garian politics regarding the composi-tion of the independent board control-ling the public media. The linkagebetween this debate and the rest of ourmedia law was what prevented us fromharmonising our laws. I think that allthe political parties that have nowbeen elected to parliament are awareof this problem and that this problemneeds to be solved. I think that theelections have created the necessarypolitical basis for finding a solution tothis problem and I am fairly optimisticabout the next few months when itcomes to negotiating the audio-visualchapter.

Janez Poto~nik talked about thethree major chapters. These are thethree major chapters for all of us. WhatI would like to say is that from ourpoint of view it is extremely important

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r tS l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a32

Béla Szombati, Undersecretary of State, Ministry ofForeign Affairs, Budapest

In the PlainPhase ofAccession

Page 33: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r t S l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a 33

that we be able to find solutionsacceptable both to our EU partners andto ourselves, on the basis of the princi-ples of equality, non-discriminationand solidarity within the EuropeanUnion. Therefore, it is extremelyimportant for us to be able to look for-ward, according to these principles,and also to find a solution which putsus on equal terms with regard to com-petition on the single internal market.We need good solutions based on agood balance of rights and commit-ments and when we are in Europe andalready when we participate in theConvention on Europe we will be for astronger and more efficient EuropeanUnion, for more integration and more

community method in those fieldswhere European or global questionsneed answers on a European or globalscale.

One last word, which is notabout enlargement, but rather aboutthe European Union itself and all thegoals and aims of the European Unionthat we all have to think through,namely whether the sufficient correla-tion is there between the ambitions ofthe European Union and the resourcesat the disposal of the European Union,because this correlation has to befound.

Finally, to paraphrase the wordsof Graham Avery about the agriculturalchapter, coming to a solution based on

equal terms for agricultural producersis economically desirable becauserestructuring is not the major problemof Hungarian agriculture, it is largelybehind us, the major problem ofHungarian agriculture is under-capital-isation and unequal terms of competi-tion on the internal market. Financially,it is feasible with not too much extraeffort. And to paraphrase GrahamAvery and Janez Poto~nik aboutSlovenia being in the Alpine phase ofnegotiations, let me say Hungary is acountry of plains rather than moun-tains, so we are in the plain stage of ournegotiations. Let us make things plain,we need Europe and Europe needs us.

In the Plain Phase of Accession

Page 34: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

The last speaker on the list usual-ly starts off by complaining that every-thing has already been said and thereremains nothing for him to deal with. Ihope to have found a niche for myself,being the sixth on the list, and wish todraw your attention to social, motiva-tional and political aspects of the entireexercise.

Increasingly, in my own country,when talking to the media, when talkingto the general public, we are confrontedwith the question, Does the Polish gov-ernment have a fall-back position? Whatwill happen in case the whole enlarge-ment exercise is delayed? What happensif others join Europe, but Poland doesnot? And finally, what would happen ifPoland gets itself an accession treaty,within the prescribed time span, butPoles vote against such a treaty in anational referendum? And then, obvious-ly, the question arises, who would paythe costs? And what are these costs?

Well, the answer usually is thatthere is no fall-back position. There areno plans or designs on what to do if oneof these scenarios materialises.Admittedly, the probability is extremelylow, but cannot be ruled out.

In our case, obviously, if we wereunable to meet the requirements andwould get delayed due to our own fail-ure, if we were not to join due to the factthat Poles would vote out the accessiontreaty, the costs would be borne byPoland itself. We would be confrontedwith a fairly deep political crisis and apossible identity crisis.

Of course, Poland is a stable par-liamentary democracy. There would beno real danger of political instability orany turn away from democracy, but aprolonged period of soul-searchingwould be inevitable. Moreover, Polandhas been investing in its own future forthe last 12 years, and all of a sudden itwould be an investment with no return atall. A waste of money, a waste of effort.Non-membership would be equal to

unrealised gains due to the fact that wewould be left out of the framework.

If the whole exercise gets delayed,not due to any shortcoming or failure onthe side of the applicant countries, butdue to the inability of the member statesto sort out their own problems to comeup with a useful, viable solution, I amconvinced the cost would be pretty highfor the entire continent. After all, itwould be proof of Europe’s inability tolive up to its global ambitions. It wouldhave a fairly negative impact on thegrand design for European integration,European institutions, and broadeningEurope. The whole exercise would all ofa sudden become a fully futile job.Finally, and this is not without impor-tance either, there would be unrealisedgains and less economic advancement.Less economic growth for the current,present European Union.

Therefore, even if we are in forthe hardest part of the job, even if therewould be a few cold showers every oncein a while between now and the end ofDecember, even if this or that memberstate might show up its cards and saythat it does not really wish the accessionnegotiations to come to a good end byDecember of this year, I believe that theprobability of such a scenario must beregarded as low. Too much has alreadybeen invested on both sides, too manypolitical and economic commitmentshave already been made. Any other sce-nario than the finalisation of accessiontalks by the end of this year and the entryof ten additional member states by 2004would be proof of Europe’s total inabili-ty to successfully confront its own future.Thus, I am optimistic and my govern-ment is optimistic, and that is the princi-ple reason why we are not looking at anyfall-back positions or developing anyalternative scenarios.

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r tS l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a34

Jan Truszczynski, Chief EU Negotiator, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Poland

No Fall-BackPositions

Page 35: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r t S l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a 35

CHAIRPERSON

PANELISTS

Sandra Ba{i}-Hrvatin, President,Slovenian Broadcasting Council,Ljubljana

Danail Danov,Programme Director, Media DevelopmentCentre, SofiaChristina Jutterström, Director-General, Swedish Television,StockholmAntonio Riva, former Director-General, SRG - SwissRadio & TV, ZurichAlbert Scharf, former Director-General, BayerischerRundfunk, MunichMilan Stibral, Director-General, CTK Czech NewsAgency, PragueIstván Wisinger,President, Association of HungarianJournalists, Budapest

“Editorial Independence is of essentialimportance for all media, whether for public media or for media in private ownership. It is a prerequisite, a precondition for a free and democraticsociety.”

Albert Scharf

Saturday, 11 May 2002

SESSION IV (A)

HOW TO GUARANTEEEDITORIAL INDEPENDENCE(PUBLIC MEDIA)Grand Hotel Union

Page 36: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

My observations and analysis willbe based on the public electronic mediain Bulgaria, although I should stress thatwhen I say public media, I mean this onlyconditionally. The former state-run elec-tronic media is still not completely rid ofstate interference. On the contrary, what Iwill be talking about in the following min-utes will give you an example of verystrong interference, both political andfinancial.

The management of any sort ofinstitution involves a whole bunch ofactivities, planning, organising and con-trolling, using various human and materi-al resources to aspire towards definiteresults. Applied to the public electronicmedia, such a definition would encom-pass a whole set of activities that end up inprogrammes that should inform, educateand entertain large segments of the overallaudience, including all social, profession-al, cultural, ethnic and other groups thatbuild up the society.

Moreover, the programmes of thepublic electronic media have to be pro-duced according to the highest possibleprofessional and ethical standards and arebound to defend the public interest. Inother words, to manage successfully anypublic electronic media outlet would pre-suppose the availability of internal andexternal factors able to prevent any politi-cal and economic interference in the veryfunctioning of the media. As far as exter-nal factors are concerned, this is usuallyachieved by the existence of a developedsystem of regulatory mechanisms thatguarantee the editorial and financial inde-pendence of the broadcasters. This is incompliance with the very definition ofpublic service broadcasting as being madefor the public, financed by the public, andcontrolled by the public.

As for the internal factors, theyshould be well implemented in the veryoperational management system of themedia. This means providing employeeswith high motivation for their work toensure a well functioning communication

system among all the different depart-ments and, last but not least, it requires asystematic, constant, and efficient controlof the whole activity of the media.

In liberal democracies, the politicaland economic independence of the publicelectronic media is guaranteed by aninterrelated system of institutions andrules serving the public interest. The legalsystem in those countries stands for com-plete transparency. It is transparency oflegal licensing and registration proceduresthat, together with the advertising market,allows all broadcasters to find their nichesand to serve and satisfy the public needs.In such an environment, the commercialstations stick to their properly selected for-mat, while the bigger public operators,having their past roots in state radio or tel-evision, are publicly funded by licencefees. Neither has to rely on the mercy ofthe political class whereby the state budg-et decides who gets what. On the con-trary, the whole variety of electronicmedia, commercial or public, is regulatedby sound principles, complete withchecks and balances that are in the publicinterest.

How do those factors apply toBulgarian broadcasting?

Frequency allocation, offered fordistribution among prospective operators,is carried out by a state institution, whichis entirely out of public control. Thismeans that no manager of any electronicmedia is capable of doing a long-termanalysis of the competitive environment.For both Bulgarian National Radio andBulgarian National Television, this meansthat effective financial planning cannot bepracticed, and strategic management islimited to a matter of day-to-day survivaltactics.

Electronic media legislation is con-centrated in the broadcasting law andtelecommunications law and their respec-tive institutions, the Council for theElectronic Media and the Telecommu-nications Regulation Committee. Duringthe last five years, there have been several

amendments to the media legislation, butpractice has shown that all of them havebeen politically motivated and notbecause of the public interest. Moreover,the election of the people to regulatebroadcasting and to manage BulgarianNational Radio and TV has been entirelyconnected to political interests.

The direct intervention of the regu-lation authorities in the selection of thegoverning boards of both radio and TV hasprovoked crises on a number of occasionsand has in no way contributed to chang-ing them from state-run to public broad-casters. Licenses for telecommunicationactivity are granted by a state agency andagain the decisions are not publicly butpolitically motivated. This makes theactivity of the managing boards ofBulgarian National Radio and TV com-pletely dependent on the ruling politi-cians. The market, as a regulator of thecommercial broadcasters, cannot operateproperly. There is no mechanism to deter-mine the real income that the operatorsget from advertising, thus allowing non-regulated financing and hindering the reg-ulation authorities from determining exactrevenues.

In practice, this situation makesBulgarian national radio and televisionbroadcasters subject to real control, some-thing that hardly brings about real compe-tition on the market. The licence fees,which are discussed at length in the elec-tronic media law, adopted in 1998, arestill not implemented. On the one hand,the annual amount as set by the law is sonegligible that it reveals again the firmdecision of the authorities to have broad-casting dependent on the state and con-trolled by the state.

Although they look similar, at firstglance, to examples of advanced publicbroadcasting, the management structuresof Bulgarian National Radio and TV arestrongly politically framed. For the last tenyears, any political change in the countryhas been accompanied by changes to themanaging boards of the electronic media.

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r tS l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a36

Danail Danov, Programme Director, Media Development Centre, Sofia

A PainfulTransformation

Page 37: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r t S l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a 37

There are not many people in the countryready to argue that the news running orderof both Bulgarian National Radio and TVwould reflect the public and not the polit-ical interests. This is mainly due to thedesire of the management of both radioand television to comply with the interestsof the politicians in power, the only thingthat could effectively guarantee them toremain in their positions.

Motivation, communication andeffective control are leading elements inthe management strategies of bothBulgarian National Radio and TV, but thepeople working in those two organisationsclaim that with regard to remuneration,working environment, professional train-ing and upward mobility, employees feeltotally non-motivated. Funds aimed attraining of personnel are scarce, if avail-able at all. The department that deals withthat activity exists because of tradition,rather than functional necessity and use-fulness. There is no effective humanresources management. There are hun-dreds of employees who cannot speak for-eign languages or operate computers. The

main reason they remain in these organi-sations is the fact that there is nowhereelse they could go. It is not motivation, butmere obedience that guides their entireperformance. Communication in bothradio and television is carried out in theform of rumours.

Quite often, horizontal communi-cation is hampered by heavy structures,departments whose work is deprived ofany sense, and often duplicates the activi-ty of other departments. The production ofnumerous programmes that do not corre-spond to high professional standards anddo not arouse the interest of the audienceshows that there is no effective controlover production. The assessment of staff isoften made by selection committees led bysubjectivity and personal interest ratherthan by professional criteria.

Ultimately, Bulgarian NationalRadio and TV represent institutions hostingill-paid, non-motivated people who oftenhave to cope with political interests ratherthan serve the public interest.

To change this tired and pessimisticpicture, there should be dynamic and

decisive change in the external and inter-nal factors that allow political and eco-nomic interference in the public broad-casting. It means creating a new legislativefoundation based on a checks and balancesystem which can guarantee constant andeffective public control. It means design-ing and enforcing a system of transparencyduring the whole process of frequencyallocation.

In addition, media institutions haveto be granted legal guarantees about theindependence of their work and theirselection. An effective system for monitor-ing, along with the enforcement of jobdescription models and managing struc-tures existing in the leading Europeanbroadcasting institutions, together withcodes of ethics and professional codes,could bring about radical changes. Andlast, but not least, the immediate imple-mentation of licence fees can guaranteethe independence of the media from thestate. Those steps could give the initialimpetus to change the state-controlledBulgarian electronic media into some sortof public service broadcaster.

A Painful Transformation

Page 38: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I recently returned to the publicservice company of Swedish Televisionafter 15 years as the editor-in-chief of adaily newspaper. I live and work in acountry where the freedom of the presshas a tradition and also a legal basestretching back over 200 years, wherefreedom of speech has been guaranteedand enshrined in the constitution forgenerations. That is why the free andindependent state of the media is solidand also why there is such popular sup-port.

With approximately 40 per centof the viewers, Swedish Television is thelargest television company. We broad-cast programmes in two analogue andtwo digital channels, and compete on amarket with three strong privately-owned, commercially financed, nationalTV channels. Today, Swedish Televisionhas around 3,000 employees. With 30 orso production departments locatedthroughout the country, it is highly de-centralised. Our programmes, which arefinanced by licence fees, are dominatedby non-fiction and news. Other pro-gramme areas are drama and fiction, thearts and light entertainment, children’sprogrammes and sport.

In my view, the purpose and thegoal of the structure of the public serviceTV station is to lay the foundations forjournalistic independence. The companymust retain its editorial independenceand integrity in relation to the govern-ment, as well as to interest groups, com-panies and pressure groups of any kind.For this reason, government and parlia-ment should not be allowed any morethan the minimum say over what direc-tion the company chooses to take con-cerning what it broadcasts. Only generalguidelines should be allowed and noinfluence at all on editorial activities.

However, democratically electedparliaments and governments have aresponsibility for ensuring that broad-casting rights are regulated by applyingcertain fundamental guidelines concern-

ing diversity, quality, accessibility andrespect for minority interests etc. Thesedifferent ambitions can be achieved witha combination of measures.

First, Swedish Television operatesunder a charter that specifies that pro-gramming shall be factual, objective andimpartial and shall widely embrace thespirit of free speech and information. Thefundamental concepts of democracyshall be intrinsic to every aspect ofbroadcasting as shall the principle ofevery individual’s right to equal treat-ment, liberty and dignity.

Secondly, the freedom of speechlaws embodied in the Swedish constitu-tion forbid the censorship and officialpreview of the programmes broadcast onTV and radio. Government authorities orany other bodies have no power orauthority to affect the content. Nobodyother than the programme companyitself can decide what is to be broadcast.

Third, each TV programme has apublisher responsible under law andviewers who considers themselves tohave been slandered by anyone in a pro-gramme can take legal proceedingsagainst a publisher in an ordinary courtof law. If anybody believes a programmeto be in contravention of this broadcast-ing chapter, a report can be submitted toan independent board, not a court,which then examines the content of thatprogramme. If found guilty, an officialannouncement is to be made and a cor-rection inserted into forthcoming pro-grammes. Last year, the BroadcastingCommission received over 400 com-plaints. The number increases from yearto year.

Fourth, Swedish Television is aprivate limited company, owned by afoundation, appointed on the basis ofnominations proposed by the politicalparties and parliament. Since the foun-dation operates on a long-term basis, itsmembership may not be affected byelection results or a change of govern-ment and the main responsibilities of the

foundation are to safeguard the inde-pendence of the company and to pro-mote autonomy by owning and manag-ing the company’s shares. It is also thefoundation that appoints the companyboard. The company’s internal organisa-tion is also designed to guarantee jour-nalistic independence. The boarddecides the corporate goals and the longterm plans, decides on the organisationand the budget and has the responsibili-ty for two appointments, namely thedirector-general and the director of pro-gramming. However, it has no editorialinfluence and takes no decisions as tothe contents of the programmes. Thatresponsibility rests on myself, as themanaging director of Swedish Television,and on the company’s director of pro-gramming.

This organisation, which inciden-tally also applies to public service radio,gives our company a very strong positionin Swedish society and amongst theviewers. As Swedish Television is ownedneither by the state or private commer-cial interests, it is able to operate feefrom pressure of any kind. We are acompany in the service of the public thatis able to accept the challenge and theresponsibility of being what we call aThird Estate, continually probing theauthorities, organisations, institutionsand companies that influence the dailylives of each and every one of us. Ofcourse, there are organisations whowould like to, and try to, influence pro-grammes. Anything else would be sur-prising. The most notorious case beingwhen the Minister of Finance once want-ed to block the airing of the forthcomingbudget. Swedish Television listenedpolitely to the Minister’s point of viewand decided with the full support of thestaff that there was no question of theitem being axed.

So this is how the Swedish modelof the free autonomous public servicecompany works. This is how the legalframework is constructed. At the same

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r tS l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a38

Christina Jutterström, Director General, Swedish Television, Stockholm

The SwedishModel

Page 39: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r t S l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a 39

time, it is my personal understanding thatregardless of how perfectly and ingen-iously the legal structure is built up, itcan still have difficulty withstandingpressure and external threats unless theabstract ideals of freedom of speech aredeeply rooted among the public and thepolitical establishment. This means thatthe credibility of the journalistic compa-nies adds a fundamental significance totheir actual position in society.

As far as Swedish Television isconcerned, it is the public that makes upthe company’s actual customer base. It isthe viewers that decide our actual future.Of course, part of our strength lies in thedemocratic structures of our country, butultimately it is a question of the respectand long-held confidence that the gener-

al public have in the work we do. Andwhen Swedish Television is credited yearafter year in impartial opinion polls forbeing the country’s most reliable TVchannel, it makes us feel a bit proud. Weare talking about a relationship with theviewers, with the people, a relationshipthat takes years to build up and thatdemands perseverance and respect tomaintain.

This is why I believe that many ofthe public service companies in thedemocracies of the world are now facinga long uphill climb involved in buildingup the full confidence of their public andsolid support for their own freedoms.This is time consuming but essentialwork, a valiant fight for free speech. Ourcontribution as company executives and

representatives of the free, independentpress must be to keep a watch on ourown morals at all times. It is our unend-ing duty to guarantee our employeesrights to perform their work in the spiritof editorial independence. Only then canspeech really be free.

To summarise, a system of suc-cessful independent television and radioneeds, besides constitutions and laws,politicians who are dedicated to, or atleast fully accept, an independent publicservice radio and television. It needsleaders and staff with competence andintegrity and, I can also add, well paidleaders and staff. It needs a broad andhigh quality choice of programmeswhich appeal to a big audience. And ittakes time.

The Swedish Model

Page 40: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

Broadcasting reflects the societyin which it operates. Switzerland is mul-tilingual, federalist and quite stable, andso is broadcasting in Switzerland.

Editorial independence is ensuredby recognition at the constitutional level,implementation in the legislation, stablemixed financing of the public broadcast-er, and the judgement of programmecomplaints by an independent, profes-sional body.

Besides the European Conventionof Human Rights of 1950, two articles ofthe Swiss Federal Constitution are partic-ularly relevant to editorial independ-ence.

Art. 17. Freedom of the Media1. The freedom of the press and broad-

casting is guaranteed.2. Censorship is forbidden.3. The secrecy of editorial work is guar-

anteed.

Art. 93. Broadcasting1. Broadcasting legislation is a federal

matter.2. Broadcasting contributes to knowl-

edge and cultural development, thefree formation of opinions and toentertainment. It takes into accountthe characteristics of the country andthe needs of Cantons. It fairly presentsevents and adequately reflects theplurality of opinions.

3. Independence of broadcasting andautonomy in conceiving the progra-mmes are guaranteed.

4. The situation and tasks of othermedia, especially the press, have tobe taken into account.

5. Programme complaints may be treat-ed by an independent authority ofcomplaints.

The first and only BroadcastingLaw of 1991 has established a three levelbroadcasting system. At the local andregional level, licenses are given to pri-vate broadcasters only. At the level of

linguistic regions and nation-wide, theSwiss Broadcasting Corporation (SBC)has a priority for general programmes,and all have access to internationalbroadcasting.

The revenue from license feesbelongs mostly to the SBC, but smallcontributions are given to private broad-casters in mountain regions.

The Broadcasting Law also recog-nizes the legal status of the SBC as agroup of independent and open associa-tions of listeners and viewers.

Due to the growing availability ofdistribution channels (85 per cent of thepopulation is on cable and digital terres-trial distribution will be developed in thecoming years), the Broadcasting Law willbe reviewed. All broadcasters will befree to operate at all levels, but the SBCwill have to deliver state-wide pluralisticprogrammes of similar value in all offi-cial languages and therefore get most ofthe license fee and limited advertise-ment. A new independent regulatorybody for both telecommunication andbroadcasting will be created, but theindependent Authority for ProgrammeComplaints will probably remain as it is.

This Authority, which decides onprogramme complaints against all broad-casters, is composed by nine media pro-fessionals working part-time and a smallsecretariat. Over the years, it has devel-oped an interpretation of programmeprinciples consistent with professionalstandards. This does not mean thatbroadcasters always agree with theAuthority’s decisions, and they may referto the Swiss Federal and the EuropeanCourt.

In practice, the yearly average ofcomplaints judged by the Authority isabout 25, out of which only three or fourare considered to be violations of pro-gramme principles. In this case, theAuthority requires the broadcaster totake adequate measures to avoid futureviolations, in general through internaltraining. If this is not done, an interven-

tion by the Regulator is required, whomay impose fines and even modify orcancel the broadcaster’s license,although this has never happened.

But editorial independence alsoneeds to be implemented inside thebroadcasting organisation, and the SBCis a very complex one.

The founders and owners of theSBC, the listeners’ and viewers’ associa-tions, autonomously elect the majority oflarger representative and small executiveboards, both at the regional and nationallevel. A minority is elected withoutinstructions by the government to ensurea balanced representation of the society.The boards nominate the top managersand oversee strategies and finances, notthe programme schedules and theirimplementation.

Focusing on the programmes,separate pluralistic consultative commis-sions and ombudsmen operate at theregional level. The director-general isprimarily responsible for respecting legalrequirements, and for successfully man-aging the company together with theboard of directors. In the professionalstructure, goals are set and resultschecked in an interactive process.Administration and finance are struc-turally separated from the programme,advertisement is acquired by a separatecompany.

Does this mean that the editorialindependence of the SBC and its jour-nalists is at its best and that editorialresponsibilities are not under threat?

Well, asking at different levels inthe house about editorial independence,no reference is made to direct govern-mental interventions besides the right ofapproving the election of the director-general. A few Authority or Federal Courtdecisions are criticised. As for politicalparties, they occasionally may havesome influence with regard to top nomi-nations. But the responsibility for elec-tion programmes lies with the broad-caster.

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r tS l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a40

Antonio Riva, former Director-General, SRG -Swiss Radio and TV, Zurich

On Switzerlandand Bosnia

Page 41: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r t S l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a 41

As everywhere, the editorial inde-pendence of the journalists is influencedby the professional decisions of their edi-tors-in-chief. And political and economi-cal journalists are exposed to the tempta-tion of self-censorship induced by thenecessity of keeping personal informa-tion channels available.

Editors-in-chief resent the pressureof competition and of maximising audi-ences, despite a programme evaluationsystem taking into account qualityaspects, and feel the changing moodsand reactions of public opinion.Pressures from advertisers are not felt tobe relevant, but sponsoring needs to bemanaged cautiously, not by the con-cerned programme people but by theseparate advertisement company.

The SBC’s management does notintervene in the daily programme opera-tions before transmission, except if aclear violation of programme principlesis taking place. In their work, occasional-ly disturbed by bureaucratic externalfinance control, top managers havemainly to respond to the challenges of

strategy, staffing and developing efficien-cy or, as far is the director-general is con-cerned, to diplomatically engage intomatters like the revision of the Broad-casting Law or the request for increasinglicense fees.

On the whole, my personalimpression is that editorial independenceat the SBC is guaranteed and implement-ed, and that it is mainly the responsibili-ty of editors and management to developthis further by trustworthy programmesserving the expectations and needs of thepublic.

In the last couple of years, as aconsultant for the European BroadcastingUnion (EBU), I was able to get acquaint-ed with the broadcasting landscape ofanother small, multicultural, but poorand still unstable European country,Bosnia-Herzegovina, where the develop-ment of public broadcasting is slowlytaking shape.

As for editorial independence, theinternational community has been quiteactive. Fair legal regulations have beenimposed, independent regulatory bodies

established, training organised, expertiseand donations delivered, a help-line forjournalists installed. But it is my impres-sion that the involvement of local mediaprofessionals could have been morecomprehensive.

In a context of still strong and dan-gerous nationalistic tensions, of poverty,unemployment and insecurity, with thebackground of a state and party broad-caster tradition, the private and publicpressures on journalists, editors and man-agement remain heavy. Too often, self-censorship has remained a condition forprofessional - and sometimes even phys-ical - survival. So, I would like to expressmy admiration for all those professionals- and there are many in Bosnia - whotake risks to ensure editorial independ-ence.

It takes years and years of efforts todevelop a mature, democratic, pluralisticbroadcasting culture. And it alwaysremains at risk, as proved by recentevents in the West.

On Switzerland and Bosnia

Page 42: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

Editorial Independence is ofessential importance for all media,whether for public media or for media inprivate ownership. It is a prerequisite, aprecondition for a free and democraticsociety. Free media stand for a free anddemocratic society. Free media stand fora free society and state. And media arefree only if they enjoy full autonomy withregard to the content they wish to pub-lish.

But is this not naive and wishfulthinking, an illusion far from reality?Public broadcasters, from their very ori-gin, have always been the voice of theruling power in society, the state, the gov-ernment, the dominant political party -there have been many examples aroundEurope over the past 50 or 80 years. Notonly the highly respected professionalmagazine, Variety, speaks of “state broad-casters” when it refers to the BBC, ARD,ORF, etc. Governments may be pleasedby such denominations, but those broad-casters are not. They regard it as not onlya semantic error, but as an offence.

Admittedly, there is some causefor such misunderstandings. State author-ities, governments, political parties tendto behave as if they were the proprietorsand masters of public radio and televi-sion. And the history of broadcasting allaround Europe gives some evidence forthat false presumption and ambition.

The politically and even legallywell-founded position that in a free soci-ety it is the constitutional duty of stateauthorities to organise broadcasting as apublic mission, without any state interfer-ence in the execution of that mission, isfor many politicians in both West andEast Europe still amazing, unbelievable,unimaginable. This, however, is exactlythe consequence the German FederalConstitutional Court drew from theGerman Constitution 30 years ago, withbinding force for legislation and govern-ment and which indeed has been thebasis for all legislation on broadcastingsince then.

Saying this with some satisfactionand pride, I do not hesitate to admit thatthis basic principle does not solve allproblems in daily life and does not pre-vent attempts to influence editorial policyand practice. But it helps a lot and in thefinal end decisively, providing the peopleresponsible for public broadcasting - edi-tors, managers, members of internalsupervisory boards - are willing to resist.This attitude is in the end a question ofeducation and self-confidence. And pub-lic opinion and public consensus on theimportance of free media in general andindependent public media in particular isa great support. Violations of the editori-al integrity of public broadcasters mustbe regarded as indecent and politicallyincorrect.

First of all, however, it must be theself-understanding of the broadcastersthemselves to observe a clear distancefrom outside powers and the powerful.And the legislation on broadcasting mustenable them to do so without a perma-nent care about their jobs and theirincome. One of the entrance doors forundue political interference is the nomi-nation of management and senior staffand their dismissal. When those func-tions are regarded as jobs at the disposi-tion of the winning party after any elec-tion, public broadcasting is not free andindependent. If, however, the manage-ment of public broadcasting does notdepend on majorities in parliament, buton internal boards which have the powerto nominate the broadcasting executives,those executives can perform their jobwith the necessary independence fromoutside powers.

Another risk for editorial inde-pendence stems from the method offinancing public broadcasting. It may notbe feasible without decisions by stateauthorities, be it government or the par-liament, when, for example, licence feeshave to be imposed on all households orother schemes of public duties have to beintroduced by laws or decrees. In such

cases strict procedural precautions arenecessary and possible in order to elimi-nate or at least to reduce outside influ-ence on editorial policy and practise toan irrelevant minimum. Independentcommissions of experts, preparing andpredetermining political decisions andgiving the whole process public trans-parency are useful tools to safeguard anindependent public broadcasting system,responsible to the public and the generalpublic only.

It goes without saying that such aprivileged independence has to be hon-oured ad justified by strict observation ofthe rules of honest journalism. Publicbroadcasting must be based on a range ofrules, such as accuracy, objectiveness,reliability and truthfulness in disseminat-ing facts. It requires fairness in all com-ments and impartiality in all matters ofpublic controversy. And it demands theethics of professional integrity, avoidingselfishness and personal obsession withideologies and biases, and modest self-restraint, whenever impartiality and plu-rality demand this. Such an - admittedlyideal - commitment is in direct opposi-tion to the arrogant attitude of the elitist“teachers of the nation”, a term usedeverywhere from time to time to describepublic broadcasters. The term “trustees ofthe nation” is a better description of whatis meant, even if this sounds a bit toosolemn.

I know of course about all the mis-takes and failures which happen in pub-lic broadcasting. I am a Parsifal strollingaround full of idealistic ideas, but lackinginsight into the complex realities of dailylife. But I do know, too, that we needideals in order to discriminate betweengood and bad, right or wrong. No breachof laws disproves a legislation and noneof the failures or even treasons disprovethe value, the suitability and well-provenviability of the concept of true and mod-ern public broadcasting.

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r tS l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a42

Albert Scharf, former Director-General,Bayerischer Rundfunk, Munich, and Honorary President, European Broadcasting Union

The Importanceof EditorialIndependence

Page 43: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r t S l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a 43

Czech society has gone through aturbulent development since 1988. Thetransformation has affected all spheres oflife including media.

All media have changed their own-ers and started to work freely. In the early1990s, the first laws of “public institu-tions” - public radio, public television andthe news agency - were passed. The pub-lic media in the Czech Republic areautonomous corporations which ownthemselves. They are connected with thestate through supervisory bodies, or coun-cils, whose members are elected by theChamber of Deputies of the Parliament.

The councils fulfil several func-tions. Besides checking whether the pub-lic media fulfil their mission as defendedby the law, they approve their budgets andappoint or dismiss the director-general.The main function of the council is, how-ever, to act as a “cushion” between thestate and individual media. They shouldact as a brake which prevents the directinfluence of politicians on these media.The law says that council members mustnot hold posts in political parties and mustnot act to the benefit of any political partyor interest group.

However, the original intentionwas not fully met. One of the reasons whythe media councils were perceived aspolitical bodies was that they were elect-ed by the Chamber of Deputies and thatthe candidates for membership were pro-posed by political parties. During the cri-sis in Czech Television in late 1999 andearly 2000, it was apparent that somemembers of the television council main-tained unusually frequent contacts withpoliticians.

As a result of the crisis in CzechTelevision, a new law was passed whichstipulates that candidates for membershipof the council are no longer proposed bypolitical parties but by various non-politi-cal associations and organisations. Thisundoubtedly improved the situation. Onthe other hand, the law stipulates that theCode of Czech Television is passed by the

Chamber of the Deputies and that anybreach of this code will be seen as abreach of discipline at work. The code isset to the principles of fulfilling the publicservice in the sphere of television broad-casting. Thus, there is an apparent effort ofpoliticians not to lose control of thismedia.

This year, the Parliament alsopassed a new bill on public Czech Radio.However, the President of the Republichas refused to approve this bill, which isidentical to the law on Czech Television.

A new law on the third publicmedia, the Czech News Agency (CTK)will probably be discussed next year. CTKhas had the status of a public media since1993. The agency works independentlyand is under no political pressure, but wesee it as a problem that the legal frame-work does not sufficiently respect thecharacter of its activity.

The news agency works as a com-mercial entity. It does not get money for itsoperations from license fees like radio andtelevision, or from state subsidies, butfrom the sale of its information. It is justthis economic independence which weconsider to be the main source and sup-port of our independence.

CTK was a state agency until 1992and its transformation into an independ-ent and reliable source of information wasnot easy. Still, in the first half of the 1990s,CTK was always referred to as the “offi-cial” Czech news agency by internationalnews agencies such as Reuters or AP. Ittook a lot of effort to get rid of this officiallabel.

How can an official news agencybe transformed into a normal newsagency? I consider economic independ-ence to be the main source of independ-ence of the news service. In other words,the news agency must not receive statesubsidies. That is why the agency had toundergo a fundamental reorganisationand completely change its style of work. Iwould like to point out that - just likeother news agencies in Central and

Eastern Europe - CTK was still the recipi-ent of big subsidies as late as the early1990s.

The second source of independ-ence, in my opinion, is that the agencymust have clearly set rules to secure anobjective news service, that is editors andmanagement.

The third source of independenceis that the agency is not obliged to carryofficial documents. A number of newsagencies in the countries of Central andEastern Europe are still obliged to do so.Luckily for CTK, the law of 1992 did notassign it this duty. Nevertheless, the Czechgovernment attempted to change the lawin 1995 and to again assign this duty tothe agency, but it did not succeed.

A big topic is privatisation.Discussion on the privatisation of CTK hasbeen underway in the Parliament for anumber of years, but no specific conclu-sion has been made yet. The CTK man-agement supports privatisation and arguesthat the agency is a commercial entity. Itdoes not receive state subsidies; it is prof-it-making.

To sum up, a second generation oflaws is emerging in the Czech Republicwhich reflect the experience of the pastyears. The new laws on public servicemedia newly define the conditions forproposing candidates for the media coun-cil’s membership and thus at least formal-ly try to reduce politicisation of these bod-ies. On the other hand, they reinforce theposition of the Chamber of Deputieswhich will pass the media codes.

The developments of the past yearsshow that to change the status of the pub-lic service media is very difficult. In myopinion, the answer cannot be found inthe formulation of laws alone. Peopleworking in these media, mainly editorsand management, definitely play just asimportant a role as the laws. The key toindependence and freedom rests in thesepeople’s personal integrity, shared valuesand the courage to defend and implementthese values.

Milan Stibral, Director General, CTK Czech News agency, Prague

Getting Rid ofthe “Official”Label

Page 44: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

It belongs to the historical heritage ofthe Hungarian press that it has always beenin the forefront of struggles for social changeand for democracy. The press was a basicelement in the war against the Habsburgs in1848. It played an important role at the endof World War II when the extreme right-wing Arrow Cross movement ruled Hungarywith the support of invading Nazi Germany.The press played a prominent role in 1956,when a peaceful revolution toppled theCommunist regime, itself to be crushed bythe Soviet army, which occupied Hungaryand helped the Communists back to power.

Against this background, it is almostincredible that 12 years after democratisa-tion and the peaceful changing of theregime, the daily routine of the majority ofjournalists has nothing to do with the condi-tions of real editorial independence in ademocratic state.

A media research group in Hungarymade a complex survey in 1992, 1997 and2000 to find out how journalists saw theirown affairs and their working conditionsboth in the print press and in broadcasting.The outcome of the survey showed that thesituation had worsened both generally andwith regard to editorial autonomy.According to the survey, between 1997-2000 the proportion of those who thoughtthat politicians or political groups tried toput pressure on their editorial office rosefrom 38 to 49 per cent. As for the economicpressure groups, their interventions weresimilar, although the trend was not so brutal.

Since the latest survey was pub-lished, the situation has deteriorated further.Consequently, the state of affairs is especial-ly dangerous for the public radio and televi-sion stations.

May I refer to the motto of a book bythe British journalist and historian PhilipKnightley, “The first casualty when warcomes is truth.” That was actually said byU.S. Senator Hiram Johnson in 1917. Arecurring negative phenomenon of the oth-erwise surely welcome political changes inHungary is a lasting media war. TheHungarian media war means that all the

political parties and all the coalition govern-ments coming into power after the succes-sive democratic general elections did theirbest to conquer the three public media inorder to own them and control them. Theyare Hungarian Radio, Hungarian Televisionand the satellite television channel, Danube.The first casualties of this 12-year-oldprocess are always the journalists.

Only six years after the changing ofthe regime, Parliament adopted a law, whichmade commercial television broadcastingpossible. Ever since then, the situation ofpublic media institutions has worsenedsteadily. Beyond doubt, all three coalitiongovernments since the changing of theregime are responsible for the material andmoral decay of the public media institutions.But it must be stated that Hungarian TV,once a focus of national attention and, yes,affection, was the main victim of the events.It lost its funds, its material and moralresources, its team of experts and, sadlyenough, its audience. And all this happenedduring the reign of a right-wing coalitiongovernment, which, according to its ownexpression, was intent on creating a “mediabalance”.

Hungarian Radio underwent a simi-lar process. Its most important political pro-grammes were turned into exclusive mouth-pieces for the governing party, Fidesz, andits allies, in the course of the close finish oftheir four-year term.

Talking about the consequences ofthe recent events in Hungary, I shall nowturn to some authoritative and, obviously,impartial sources. The Organization forSecurity and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)said after the first round of the parliamentaryelections in Hungary (8 April 2002),“Campaign coverage in both public andcommercial media focused predominantlyon the joint governing coalition Fidesz-MDFon the one hand, and the leading oppositionMSZP (Socialists) on the other. Bias in favourof the government and the ruling partyFidesz was evident in public televisionwhile private television generally providedneutral or critical coverage of all contest-

ants. Perceptions about the blurring of thegovernment’s advertising and the politicaladvertisements of the ruling party in boththematic content and appearance becamethe focus of political debate in the media.”

The Secretary General of theInternational Federation of Journalists (IFJ),Aidan White, had this to say, “Here inEastern Europe, regulation and administra-tion of media in some countries remainsheavily politicised. Parties compete forinfluence on boards of management of pub-lic television and radio... The situation inHungary is a prime example of this broad-casting crisis... The perception of the gov-ernment influence over the media hasundoubtedly contributed to a catastrophiccollapse in public and professional confi-dence in public television.”

Henceforth, the guarantee for edito-rial independence in Hungary can be noth-ing but the adoption of a new media law, allthe more since EU President Romano Prodi,holding talks with Hungarian Prime MinisterViktor Orb·n in Budapest last April, himselfdeclared that the changing of the media lawis a necessity to reach an agreement on thischapter to promote Hungary’s joining theUnion.

There is a chance for success due tothe outcome of the last elections in Hungary.One of the consequences of the elections isthat MI…P, an extreme right-wing politicalparty, which took a very active part in sup-porting the government in manipulating thelaw, has failed to reach the limit to enterParliament.

Surely, clear, valid and viable lawsare not enough to make peace in the worldof the media, to demolish barricades and toreach editorial independence. We are in des-perate need of seeing to it that journalistslive and work safely. We also need to ensurethat editorial offices, whether private or state-owned, are given a fair chance on the mar-ket. As for the journalists, they should reachthe highest professional and ethical stan-dards in order to save them from fighting onthe barricades of the media war for demo-cracy, a war that has had so many victims.

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r tS l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a44

István Wisinger, President, Association of HungarianJournalists, Budapest

The FirstCasualties

Page 45: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r t S l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a 45

CHAIRPERSON

PANELISTS

Peter Preston, Director, The GuardianFoundation, London

Kim Dae-joong, Editor-in-Chief, Chosun Ilbo, SeoulLjubica Markovi},Director, BETA News Agency, BelgradeAlexander Pumpiansky,Editor-in-Chief, Novoye Vremya, MoscowRichard Steyn,former Editor-in-Chief, The Star,Johannesburg

“I can only say that, after 20 years on the Guardian, the years where we made a profit I had a wonderful time and theyears where we did not make a profit I had a much more difficult time. So profit is a hugely important thing to an editor.”

Peter Preston

Saturday, 11 May 2002

SESSION IV (B)

HOW TO GUARANTEE EDITORIALINDEPENDENCE (PRIVATE MEDIA)Grand Hotel Union

Page 46: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

Just a few words from me to kickoff, in which I will try to answer the ques-tion, from my own experience, of what isthe most important thing in newspaper lifethat guarantees you independence as aneditor. I can only say that, after 20 yearson the Guardian, the years where wemade a profit I had a wonderful time andthe years where we did not make a profit Ihad a much more difficult time. So profitis a hugely important thing to an editor.

Also, in the context of this session,I think it is very interesting for once at theIPI to get into almost a quagmire of tryingto define terms about what we mean byindependence and what we mean by free-dom. We shall have some of that I am surefrom our panelists during the afternoon,but just to ask a few questions from thingsI have observed since I am here. Whatguarantees independence in privatemedia? In some of the Balkans - Mace-donia, Kosovo - it is subsidies from thegovernment or from donor countries. It isnot entirely the case that private media isto one side in getting money from govern-mental sources. Beyond that, as we know,governments can impinge in all sorts ofdirect things like licensing or the price ofpaper or the amount of newsprint that isavailable to you, and in the wholepanoply of laws. So governments are veryimportant in all of this and we shall cer-tainly learn more of this when the gentle-man from South Korea talks to us.

But beyond that, there are otherthings which impinge on press freedoms,including, sometimes, trade unions andassociations of journalists. We heardtoday how, in some Middle Eastern coun-tries, associations of journalists actuallyorganise themselves so that if you writesomething which is disapproved of as amatter of policy in that union, you loseyour card and you cannot operate as ajournalist. That to me is a denial of free-dom and we see that all the time.

I think there are some other areasthat we will need to concentrate on. Forexample, the matter of the publisher/pro-

prietor versus the editor. Who can be aproprietor of a newspaper? What is therelationship with the editor? Does the edi-tor have a particular sort of freedom or, asappointed by the publisher, is he thereintrinsically to follow the line that the pub-lisher has set up the paper and has invest-ed his or his company’s money in puttingforward? These are all critical questions.

In just the same way, there is thequestion of the almost tyranny of the bigchains. In Britain as in many other coun-tries, regional newspapers are formingthemselves into huge chains of 200, 300,400 papers. These papers newly have list-ings on the stock market and when some-thing like September 11 happens, thenautomatically their share prices comeunder question and they have to startimplementing a series of budget cuts.They operate internationally and you findeditors having their newsrooms strippeddown in order to make savings to dealwith an economic situation far away -rat-ings on Wall Street and prospects forinvestment there.

So, these are all complex mattersand I hope we will get into them duringthe course of the afternoon with our dis-tinguished panelists.

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r tS l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a46

Peter Preston, Director, The Guardian Foundation,London

Independenceand Freedom

Page 47: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r t S l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a 47

In Korea, almost all media exceptthe KBS, the government-owned broad-casting company, are private media. Atleast this is so in terms of the structure ofownership in the media companies,although it is not clear whether the “pri-vate” refers to the structure of the owner-ship or the independent stance of the edi-torial writings.

Anyway, even in the structure ofownership, there are many types of own-ership in the Korean media. In otherwords, there are media companies ownedby a family, by employees, by the govern-ment, or by a conglomerate. So in Korea,looking for the difference between “pub-lic” and “private” is meaningless as far aseditorial independence is concerned.“Private” does not necessarily mean“independent”. The intention of the gov-ernment to exert influence on media is sostrong that no private media is out of itsreach. The only difference is the degree ofresistance by the individual media.

Korean private media, of course,have some problems in coping with theinterests of proprietors, shareholders, andadvertisers. However, the real obstaclesfor private media are the political powerof the government. The pressure thatcomes from the owners of media andadvertisers is almost insignificant com-pared to that of the government.

The government has changed tac-tics to influence the media over the years.In the old days, the government simplycoerced media personnel or made out-right threats to editors to change editori-als. Those were visible and physical ones.Nowadays, the means and tactics havebecome very subtle. There are no directthreats or pressures. No more outrightarrests of journalists are made. However,eavesdropping, surveillance, and secretinvestigations are still going on. The moststriking change in tactics is to aim directlyat the owners by investigating their per-sonal weaknesses instead of targeting thejournalists or editorial writers.

The case in point is last year’s taxinvestigation. Korean private media wentthrough a thorough and systematic taxinvestigation by the government last yearand three newspaper owners were arrest-ed with astronomical back taxes. Thecases are still pending in court. This gov-ernment will be recorded as the severestpress suppressor in Korean history.

And, a couple of days ago, the edi-tor of Donga Ilbo, one of the most influ-ential and independent newspapers inKorea, resigned his post because the gov-ernment claimed that he was involved ina scandal, framing him as an unethicaljournalist.

Furthermore, during this pressoppression, a number of ruling party par-liamentarians and several NGOs that sup-ported the government actions submittedlegislation that would limit the ownershipof a media company. For example, theydevised a law that the largest shareholdercannot own more than 30 per cent of themedia company. This legislation is stillpending in the parliament.

And the newly nominated presi-dential candidate from the ruling partyeven went further. He spoke about nation-alization of an independent newspaperalthough he asserted that he could notremember saying this. Yet he madenumerous public statements that hewould viciously fight against the ChosunIlbo, claiming that the newspaper report-ed distorted news about him. This meansthat he will do so if he is elected as thenext president. This kind of pressure orig-inates from the fact that these privatenewspapers do not cooperate with the rul-ing party and keep criticising the govern-ment policies on health, education, andNorth Korea issues.

There is one more strange phe-nomenon in the Korean private media.Korean media is largely divided into twoparts, pitting one against the other. It ismore than normal competition. The fightis about ideological stances. For instance,the Chosun Ilbo, the Donga Ilbo, and the

Joongang Ilbo are being attacked by left-leaning newspapers.

In conclusion, the battle lineagainst these private newspapers isbetween the politically powerful and thecritics who criticise the politically power-ful. The intention to change the ownershipstructure is just an excuse to silence thecritical media.

Currently, Korea is conducting animportant experiment for the upcomingpresidential election in December. As faras the media is concerned, the very exis-tence of private media could face a gravethreat and there could be a change in theform of private media depending on theresult of presidential elections. The under-current in this rift is an ideological con-frontation as well.

It is true that private media must gothrough a self-cleansing process. Mostimportant of all, transparent management,accurate reporting, and gaining trust fromreaders must be achieved. The wrongimpression given to the public such as“despotic private media” should be self-corrected as well. Even with all theseendeavours, however, I cannot deny thefact that Korean media is affected not bythe market but by the political stance ineditorial writings.

Under these circumstances, tokeep or not to keep the editorial inde-pendence, that is the question. Throughmy long experience, I can tell you that itis better to defend freedom of the pressthan to wait for the political power togrant press freedom. This is because allpolitical powers hate to be criticised. Thedefence of press freedom depends on thespirit of people in the media. These arejournalists, editors, editorial writers andpublishers.

We Koreans overcame this lastyear. To be a journalist or to run a news-paper company in Korea, one must notonly be absolutely clean, but also not har-bour any wrong-doings, and especiallystay away from being politicised becausethat is the spell of death in Korea.

Kim Dae-joong, Editor-in-Chief, Chosun Ilbo, Seoul

Degrees ofResistance

Page 48: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I will try to focus on what I think isa sort of precondition for having editorialindependence for media everywhere andin my country especially. A year and a halfafter democratic government was createdin Serbia in the wake of the October 2000overthrow of the former regime, the mediascene in the country has all the features ofa delayed transition. Legislation regulatingthe area has not been passed, acquiredprivileges persist, there is no tax exemp-tion and the privatisation of the statemedia outlets has not started yet. Becauseof that, all such organisations, both state-run and independent/private, have sur-vival as their common and primary goal.Widespread poverty has made newspapercirculation the lowest in Europe and thesum of money set aside for advertising isno different. Ten daily newspapers have acombined circulation of 700,000 copies.

There have been changes though.The government no longer uses state insti-tutions, ministries, courts and financialpolice to persecute media organisationsand journalists. The notorious informationlaw has been repealed. The Serbian gov-ernment has returned most of the moneytaken by the former regimes from inde-pendent media outlets in fines for violat-ing the information law. The fear, wide-spread among such media organisations,that the police might at any moment,under any excuse, enter their offices hasdisappeared. There is no doubt that thenew government in Belgrade respectsfreedom of speech and is much more tol-erant of criticism. State-run newspapersand broadcasters no longer feature editori-als aimed at discrediting the administra-tion’s political opponents and the West isno longer vilified either.

However, as far as success goes,the situation is worse. Various taxes haveincreased by over 60 per cent and the onlytax that has been abolished is one chargedper copy of unsold newspaper. The debateon the transformation of state-run newspa-pers and broadcasters into public servicesand key media bills governing matters

such as information, freedom of informa-tion, telecommunications and broadcast-ing has been going on for over a year now.Not one of these bills has been passed andtheir passage is a key condition for creat-ing a sound market which would allowoutlets to compete based upon theirrespective quality.

It is hard to expect that this year,when presidential elections are due inSerbia and a temporary outline for thefuture co-federal state of Serbia andMontenegro has to be defined, will bringany major changes in the media spherebecause the authorities prefer the statusquo. The political class in Serbia has yet toface the fact that the media, non-govern-mental organisations and parts of civilsociety are equal factors in defining publicopinion and defining political and othersocial goals.

The degree of freedom and inde-pendence enjoyed by the media dependson three basic factors. The first is legisla-tion. The second is capable managementand the ability to survive in the market andthe third is the level of professionalismand responsibility of journalists. At themoment, Serbia is in a rather specific andsomewhat contradictory situation. Duringa decade of confrontation with the formerregime, an alternative civil society wasestablished, independent media outletsbeing part of it and well aware of them-selves. That part of society is unwilling toaccept without question the attempts of apart of the political establishment to retaincontrol of political communication byresorting to somewhat altered means.

Many problems relating to freedomof communication have little to do withthe flaws of the government and muchmore with the rather low professionallevel of journalists themselves. Many ofthem for example do not have the rightidea of what corruption is. Recently themarketing service of a large private com-pany in Belgrade invited chief editors oflocal media outlets to take a free ride on aprivate plane to Russia in exchange for

reports on the company successors. Theflight had to be cancelled because theplane simply was not big enough foreverybody who was interested. It is unre-alistic to expect journalists to demonstrateunmistakable professional reasoningwhen democratic government is in theprocess of being established. Much hasyet to be done in Serbia when it comes toeducating journalists and setting stricterprofessional standards, but this hinges onreforms and reforms, in turn, on the gov-ernment. However, the government doesnot seem in a hurry to change this.

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r tS l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a48

Ljubica Markovi}, Director, BETA News Agency,Belgrade.

Preconditionsfor EditorialIndependence

Page 49: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r t S l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a 49

I have often been asked if PresidentVladimir Putin likes the media. “Of course helikes it,” I answer, “otherwise he would not tryto grab control over it.” The two great exam-ples of how Putin grabbed control over mediawere provided during the last year or so. Thesewere the two great wars waged by the Stateagainst Vladimir Gusinsky and his mediaempire, including the television channel NTV,and against Boris Berezovsky and his televi-sion channel, TV-6. In these two wars, allmeans were used. Raids on the headquartersof the media empires by masked policemen,the arrest of Gusinsky on fraud charges,attempts to make an agreement while he wasin prison, trading freedom for control of themedia empire, and so forth. The results arewell known. Both oligarchs have lost controlof their media empires. Both of them areabroad and they cannot return to Russiabecause they are justifiably afraid of beingarrested and sent to jail. Is it as simple as that?No, the situation is a bit more complicated,but to understand it I will have to explain thevery strange phenomenon of media oligarchsin my country.

The media oligarch - and Gusinskyand Berezovsky are classical examples of themedia oligarch - is a very strange figure, a fig-ure who owns media of course, but mostly heis a power-broker who uses his power affilia-tions in order to gain economic results and heuses his media in order to gain a more solidposition in policy-making and vice versa. I willgive you an example of how the media oli-garchs, Gusinsky and Berezovsky, would usetheir independent media, the channels thatthey owned.

The infamous “information war” of1997 was waged because at that time about25 per cent of the state-run Syazinvest tele-communications company was offered for pri-vatisation, and Gusinsky and Berezovsky hadagreed that this should go to Gusinsky.Previously, all the other companies that hadbeen privatised were dealt with in this manner,in some dark room with government officials,but this time the government of so-calledyoung reformers said “no”, it must be an hon-est deal. Whoever offered more money would

get the 25 per cent stake in the company. Andthe deal was probably more or less honest,because it went to Vladimir Potanin’s empire.Potanin proposed a huge sum at that time,approximately US$ 1 billion. Over US$ 1 mil-lion more than Gusinsky had proposed.

This started the information war, whichwas really a dirty campaign of character assas-sination by the two media oligarchs againstAnatoly Chubais and the so-called youngreformers. This campaign was waged for sev-eral months and was an act of revenge by thetwo media oligarchs. They changed the gov-ernment because they did not get the deal theywanted. So this is an example of how themedia is, or was, being abused to pursue polit-ical and economic interests.

In the 1920s, there was an episodewhen Lenin was already near death. He wasisolated somewhere near Moscow and he wasnot getting any real information from the out-side. Even the newspaper Pravda printed aspecial issue for him, with different contents ofcourse. So Lenin would get from his copy ofPravda a very different picture of the countrythan the other people were getting. But whatGusinsky and Berezovsky did was even worse,I would say, than this special issue of Pravda,because they used the whole media to send amessage to only one person, to the President.They would start a media campaign against thisor that minister or prime minister, they wouldcreate a kind of public mock trial, and all thiswas done only to ensure that President BorisYeltsin got the message that, “Society is reallyagainst this guy, so you must change this guy”.This is how the media worked under the oligarchs.

So Gusinsky and Berezovsky tried todo the same thing with Putin when he came topower. They were so arrogant, they had had somany political victories, and the weapon ofthe media was so strong, that they believedthey could speak to President Putin in thesame way. After all, he was a young guy whowas in a way made by Berezovsky. But thistime it did not work. This time, the govern-ment and the Kremlin used all their opportuni-ties, all the dirty tricks, all the strong weaponsthey had, to eliminate the oligarchs. So this isa chapter that was closed with very controver-

sial results. On the one hand, it is a very sadblow to pluralism, because there is almostcomplete governmental control of the elec-tronic media, at least. On the other hand, Iwould say that readers or viewers do not seevery much difference in what, for example, thenew NTV shows, as compared with the NTVof Gusinsky’s time.

So let me ask a question. There is gov-ernmental control of the media, but what sortof control? How total is the control gained bythe Kremlin? In our country, we rememberwell the real control that existed beforeMikhail Gorbachev, some 15 years ago. Thiswas real, totalitarian control, when every pub-lication and every word practically was con-trolled by censorship. Is there any ideologypropagated in the state-controlled or Kremlin-controlled media today? No. Until now, atleast, there is no ideology, whether that becommunism, fascism, nationalism, religiousfundamentalism, etc. There is state controltoday, but state control for what?

In Russia today, the state means thePresident, not the prime minister, the parlia-ment, or other groups of politicians. The stateis equal to the President only, but we do notsee the results of that control, other than theknowledge that when the next election comes,then of course this control will work veryeffectively. Then all the pressures will be put inplace and then all this media should work forthe sake of the presidential candidate,President Putin.

Strange as it is, this control is of a dif-ferent type at least than it was duringCommunist times. Strange as it is, we can saythat it is a type of democracy, because this toolshould be used only during election cam-paigns and in no other situations, and it shouldbe used for the presidential candidate, thepresent President. So it is a democracy, a verystrange democracy, a very weak democracy,but nevertheless a democracy.

So let me finish with the very strange con-clusion that despite all these things we are livingin a democracy, we are living with a certainamount of pluralism, and we are living with free-dom of the media. Of course, one must ask, Towhom does this freedom of the media belong?

Alexander Pumpiansky, Editor-in-Chief, Novoye Vremya, Moscow

Kremlin-controlledMedia

Page 50: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I suppose I should begin by statingmy qualifications for being on this panel. Itwas a dispute over editorial independencethat led to my resignation and departurefrom journalism after 20 years spent editingtwo South African newspapers. The issuessurrounding my departure are directly rele-vant to the topic under discussion today. Iconfine my remarks to the print media,about which I have some direct experience,but they are relevant to the electronic mediaas well.

My circumstances were by nomeans unique and may be briefly outlined.Throughout my editorial career I had oper-ated under a tried and tested system - whosevalue had been proven during the apartheidyears - of shared responsibility between edi-tor and general (or commercial) manager,who were co-responsible to the board ofdirectors for the performance of the news-paper. There was a strict division betweenchurch and state. As editor I had to deter-mine the paper’s political direction anduphold editorial integrity and standards.The general manager was responsible foradvertising and circulation and it was ourjoint task to ensure profitability. While edi-torial quality was my primary concern,commercial considerations were never farfrom my mind and I worked productivelyand profitably with a succession of generalmanagers.

The value of this system lay in theprotection it gave to an editor when influ-ential forces in government or in businesstried to bring untoward commercial pres-sure to bear on the newspaper’s manage-ment. From time to time there were actualcases where chairmen of newspaper com-panies disregarded short-term economicconsiderations and stood alongside editorsagainst powerful politicians in defence ofpress freedom. On one momentous occa-sion this alliance successfully persuaded theapartheid government against taking thefinal fateful step of grabbing control ofopposition newspapers.

The arrival of a new democratically-elected government in the mid 1990s and

the replacement of one powerful politicalforce by another did not seem to me suffi-cient reason to tamper with a system thatwas not perfect but, like democracy itself,had proven to be better than any alterna-tive.

New political circumstances andforeign ownership together wrought manychanges in the South African newspaperindustry, some for better and some forworse. In the case of the venerable Argusnewspaper group, the largest newspaperchain in the country with the JohannesburgStar as its flagship, the new owners immedi-ately set about making their titles more prof-itable by driving more deeply into the mid-dle/mass market, cutting costs and makingeditors subject to the dictates of commercialmanagers rather than the board. I had beenconsistently opposed to the latter develop-ment and, when it came about on the Star,had no hesitation in folding my tent. I did sowith the words of an Australian businessconsultant ringing in my ears: “There’snothing special about a newspaper; it’s likea fruit machine... you just key in the vari-ables, pull the lever and out pours a bucketload of money”. That was not why I hadspent two decades in journalism. What hap-pened thereafter, and over time, wasinstructive. The content of the group’snewspapers became heavily influenced bymarket research (and by some of the inani-ties of “reality” television), editorial budgetswere cut, foreign bureaus were closed, thetraining of journalists was all but discontin-ued, the preferences of long-standing read-ers were sublimated to those of the new tar-get market, cover prices went up - and cir-culation went down. But profits rose,enabling the new owners to claim, withsome justification, that they were doingexactly what shareholders required of them.

Five years later there was a fascinat-ing sequel. A series of pro-governmentadvertisements suddenly appeared in thegroup’s newspapers countrywide defendingthe South African president’s highly contro-versial stance on HIV/AIDS. It subsequentlytranspired not only that the government had

not paid for the space, but also that none ofthe group’s editors had been aware that theads would be appearing in his newspaper.Management had cut a deal behind theireditors’ backs to run official propagandafree of charge. The loss of credibility wasimmense, but hardly surprising. Such arethe fruits of allowing managers rather thaneditors to run newspapers.

Of course mine was not an isolatedcase. Editors around the world regularly fallfoul of commercial pressures. And as thesepressures increase in this electronic age, sothe aims of editors and managers comeincreasingly and relentlessly into conflict.

Let me say at once that I have con-siderable sympathy for the predicament ofmanagers, particularly those in public com-panies whose shareholders are fixated onshort-term profits and on maximisingreturns on investment. As an editor, it wasoften far easier to sound off piously aboutthe short-sightedness and apparent indiffer-ence of management while leaving the lat-ter with the unenviable task of satisfyingproprietors whose real interest in newspa-pers often ran no deeper than their ownegos and their company’s bottom line.

And management’s predicament isheightened as editorial competition fromelectronic and other media grows, as televi-sion cuts ever more deeply into print adver-tising budgets, as newsprint and other costsrise, as weaker currencies depreciate and -in my country - as the clamour for (racial)transformation becomes more insistent. Inthese circumstances something has to giveand more often than not that something iseditorial quality.

What, therefore, is to be done?Various remedies have been suggested,from better training of the editors to thedrafting of editorial charters to greater carein the selection of editors and board mem-bers of newspaper companies. Yet theanswer, I believe, lies in the nature andstructure of newspaper ownership ratherthan the qualities of individual people.

It is no coincidence, to my mind,that the best and most respected newspa-

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r tS l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a50

Richard Steyn, former Editor-in-Chief, The Star, Johannesburg

NewspaperOwnershipStructures

Page 51: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r t S l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a 51

pers, in the English-speaking world at anyrate, have been owned by great publishingfamilies or by trusts. The reason is not hardto find. Their raison d’etre, their guidingprinciple, has always been a combination ofpublic spiritedness and the pursuit of profit.Great publishers have understood that anewspaper, as a commodity, is far more thana cake of soap or a can of soup. A newspa-per is, in part, a public or common good.Newspapers worthy of the name give theirreaders both what they would like to knowas well as what they ought to know. Inreturn for the privilege of access, a newspa-per helps to set the public agenda; itadvances ideas and arguments; it explainsand takes sides on important issues; and itacts as a watchdog over powerful interests.Newspapers are the recipients of the pub-lic’s trust, a trust that cannot be adequatelydischarged if their motivation is to pander tothe lowest common denominator in taste inorder to deliver outstanding returns to share-holders.

That does not mean, I must makeclear, that newspapers should be taken outof private hands, given government subsi-dies or be freed from market forces. Goodnewspapers are expensive to run and mustmake good profits. Newspapers that are notsubject to the constraints of the market anddo not take account of what readers wantare invariably self-satisfied, out of touch andboring - with government-owned newspa-pers and television stations the most boringof all. In the media, as elsewhere, commer-cial competition is good as long as it leadsto a greater end, that of good quality - and Ido not necessarily mean upmarket - news-papers.

But, in a better-ordered world, news-papers would not be owned by remote,multinational conglomerates, many ofwhom are driven solely by profit and showscant regard for local or national interests, orby proprietors who are not prepared toassume the special responsibilities that own-ing a newspaper entails.

There are various ways in whichnewspapers could be kept in “sympathetic”

hands, whereby their commercial viabilitycould be balanced against their role as pro-tectors of the public interest. Some of thesemight include limiting share-ownership innewspaper companies and distributingparcels of shares among thousands of smallinvestors; making it easier for journalists andmedia workers to hold shares in the compa-nies they work for; creating newspaper-owning trusts directed by businessmen whotruly understand the value of having anindependent watchdog to guard against theexcesses of governments, business and otherpowerful vested interests.

Coming from a continent with a poorrecord of accountability and having spentmost of my working life in the newspaper orcorporate media world, I remain acutelyaware of the power of the media as a forcefor good, provided that the other elements ofgood governance - such as an effective judi-cial system - are also present. No other insti-tution possesses the media’s ability to keepthe powerful on the straight and narrow,which, incidentally, is why I would makethe existence of a free press a pre-requisitefor the receipt of foreign aid.

I do not believe it to be beyond thewit of man to devise new ownership struc-tures for this essential element of a well-functioning democracy, or to devise newregulations that prevent newspapers frombecoming the plaything or mouthpiece ofany one shareholder.

It ought be possible, for a start, topersuade public-spirited corporations of thevalue of investing in a free and independentpress. As experience in countries like theUnited States, Britain, Germany and Scan-dinavia has proved, business flourishes in anopen and democratic environment. Largecompanies spend millions on social invest-ment in health, welfare, education and otherfields. It might be unrealistic to expect themto spend a portion of that investment on pro-tecting the marketplace of ideas, on seekingto ensure that the business environmentremains open, honest and free from theoverweening power of vested interests. Butcompanies may well be persuaded to invest

in a type of interest-bearing investment, adebenture, say, or corporate bond withcoupon attached, that would give them areal though limited return on their money.An arrangement of this kind would enable apublic-spirited corporation both to protectits market place and make some moneyfrom its media investment. The recipient, inturn, would be subject to commercial disci-plines and would need to make a profit, butnot the level of profit that an equity-basedinvestment would require, a level that cur-rently serves to distort the operations of somany newspapers.

When it comes to setting andupholding standards, press regulation isgenerally not a good thing, unless it is self-regulation. But I see less harm in industry-wide regulation, which holds newspapers toa set of standards commensurate with theirspecial responsibilities, in a democraticsociety, to the general public.

It seems to me common cause thatthe balance between commercialism andthe public interest has tilted too far and thatcommercial interests now predominate. Theills of modern journalism, which we areconcerned with today, are the result, Ibelieve, of too much rather than too littlecompetition, of too much power being con-centrated in the hands of too few people. Ifthat is the case, then surely it is time to re-examine the foundations of the mediaindustry in order to determine how ournewspapers might better serve the publicinterest, the democratic interest. And if thecase for alternative ownership structuresholds water, to come up with some wellthought out financial engineering and sensi-tive regulation that is appropriate for thisglobal age.

I quite agree with Michael Prowse ofthe Financial Times who wrote in a recentcolumn that the media’s problem in themodern era has more to do with weak structures, than with weak editors or weakpeople.

Newspaper Ownership Structures

Page 52: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

CHAIRPERSON

KEYNOTE STATEMENT

PANELISTS

Richard Tait, Editor-in-Chief, ITN,London

Chris Cramer, President, CNNInternational Networks, Atlanta

Robert Cox, President, Inter AmericanPress Association (IAPA), MiamiRonald Koven, European Representative,World Press Freedom Committee, ParisRafael Marques, Freelance Journalist;Country Director, Open SocietyFoundation, LuandaRodney Pinder, Editor, Video News,Reuters, LondonAidan White, General Secretary,International Federation of Journalists,Brussels

“Journalists and those who support themare more in harm’s way today than everbefore. And those of us who manage andassign them have a greater than everresponsibility to ensure we do everythingpossible for our staff. For the last fewyears some of us in positions of responsi-bility have been urging the entire mediaprofession to wake up to the issue ofsafety training for our staff. I have to tellyou that for a long time we felt that ourpleas were falling on deaf ears.”

Chris Cramer

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r tS l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a52

Sunday, 12 May 2002

SESSION V

PROTECTION OF JOURNALISTS IN REGIONS OF CONFLICTGrand Hotel Union

AP Photo AP Photo

AP Photo

Page 53: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r t S l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a 53

The areas we propose to discusstoday are practical, but also political.What can we do as practitioners tomake our profession safer. What shouldwe do to ensure that those who kill ormaim journalists are brought to justice.What can we do to create an environ-ment - a political environment, a mili-tary environment - in which journalistsare safer. And whether you, as the rep-resentatives of some of the world’sleading media, are doing enough inyour own organisations to ensure thatthe people who work with us and for usare as safe as they can be in our profes-sion.

If you have read the World PressFreedom Review for 2001, at the backthere is the melancholy section calledthe “IPI Death Watch” of 55 journalistsand media workers who were killed. Ifyou read each one of their stories youwill find that they all have two things incommon. The first is that they werekilled because they were journalists orcameramen. The second thing is theperson who killed them or the peoplewho had them killed have not beencaught, have not been brought to jus-tice. There may have been an investi-gation, but no one has been arrested,no one has been jailed. So, the secondpart of our discussion is, in a sense,how do they get away with it and whatwe can do to stop people getting awaywith killing journalists?

We are going to begin this ses-sion with two pieces of video tape. Thefirst is a piece by David Shukman, oneof the BBC’s foreign correspondents,which looks at the current dangersencountered by journalists coveringconflicts and what steps have beentaken by some media organisations totry and minimise these. Immediatelyafter that, we will have a keynote state-

ment from a very distinguished interna-tional journalist, Chris Cramer, who isthe President of CNN InternationalNetworks in Atlanta. Sadly, Chris can-not be with us today, but he is a greatsupporter of IPI and he sends us thisstatement from his base in Atlanta.

Richard Tait, Editor-in-Chief, ITN, London

Making ourProfessionSafer

Page 54: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

Firstly, my sincere apologies that Icould not join you in person to discuss thiscritically important topic. However, I amthere very much in spirit. I cannot think ofanything more central to discuss in theworld of media today than that of the safe-ty of our staff. Put simply, we have had adreadful year. Whatever figures you careto use - from the Committee to ProtectJournalists (CPJ), from The FreedomForum, or from our own grisly records -the past 12 months will go down as theworst in living memory for our profession.Somewhere between 50 and one 100members of the media have died doingtheir jobs. Eight in Afghanistan last year ina single week. More journalists killed atone time in the so-called “War AgainstTerror” in that country than members ofthe armed forces. And then came theappalling and pointless murder of the WallStreet Journal’s Daniel Pearl. Executed,mutilated on camera, by an obscure andugly group of terrorists in Pakistan.

Whether we like it or not, the issuewe all need to confront is that we are nowseen as legitimate targets by an increasingnumber of individuals and factions aroundthe world and this trend can only getworse. For some of these murderers werepresent very easy targets - targets for rob-bery and then murder. (We tend to carryvery large amounts of cash with us.) Forothers we represent the extension of theenemy - the United States, Britain, theWest, Capitalism - and for still others weare just a nuisance, to be eliminated,removed from the scene.

Journalists and those who supportthem are more in harm’s way today thanever before. And those of us who manageand assign them have a greater than everresponsibility to ensure we do everythingpossible for our staff. For the last few yearssome of us in positions of responsibilityhave been urging the entire media profes-sion to wake up to the issue of safety train-ing for our staff. I have to tell you that fora long time we felt that our pleas werefalling on deaf ears. Very few broadcasters

and even fewer newspapers and maga-zines have guidelines for their staff whenit comes to working in hostile areas. Thiscannot be allowed to continue.

During your debate today, I wouldchallenge you to join CNN, the BBC, ITN,Reuters, APTN and a few others in agree-ing that it is unforgivable to deploy ourstaff into hostile areas without propertraining, proper equipment, protectedvehicles and adequate insurance. And allof this should cover the staff on our payrolland the freelancers who work in ourname. We should be drawing no distinc-tion between staff or freelancers. At CNNwe have tightened our own very stringentpolicies and we now insist that every per-son working for us must go on a hostileenvironment course before they go to awar zone. And those of our staff who havehad years of practical experience in thefield are not exempt, they will be sent oncourses as well.

This month we are running coursesin Europe, Asia, and the United States. Bythe end of the year, we estimate that morethan 300 hundred CNN staff and free-lancers will have been trained and manyothers are going on refresher courses. Thatincludes domestic and international newsgatherers as well as programme makersand production staff. They are going toreceive practical advice on how to oper-ate in a war zone, lessons on the differenttype of armaments, landmines and thelike. And, crucially, they will learn battle-field medical expertise, so as to save theirown life or that of a colleague. They willalso learn that journalists, too, like aid andrescue workers and members of the armedforces, can suffer from post-traumaticstress disorder and that that is okay. Howcould we not be affected by what wecover? Flak jackets are very rarely a pro-tection from mental anguish.

These are just some of the thingsthat we are doing here at CNN. It is exact-ly the same for staff at other broadcastersand agencies, like BBC, ITN and Reuters.Tragically and dangerously, we are still

among the minority of organisationsaround the world who take safety serious-ly. There are still media organisations,maybe some represented among youtoday, who refuse to confront the issue,who refuse to protect and train their staff,who refuse to spend the very little moneyon keeping their staff safe. So my messageto them is very simple, they should beashamed of themselves, and they shoulddo something about it before their staff areinjured or worse.

Newspapers and magazines herein the U.S., in Europe and elsewhere, havebeen the slowest in making this a priority.There are some notable exceptions, buttoo few to make a difference. Printreporters and photographers tell me thatthey do not need this kind of protection,they travel in small groups or by them-selves, they are less of a target. All I cansay to them is remember Danny Pearl. Weare all targets.

My challenge today is very simple.Come away from this IPI gathering withfirm guidelines on safety for our journal-ists. Create a culture in your organisationwhere safety is as much a part of anassignment as choosing the right reporter,or camera or lens. As an industry, we haveto reduce the risks our staff are facing andwe have to understand that some of themmay feel the effects of what they cover andthey also need our support. Our peopleare our most important resource, it is theleast we can do for them.

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r tS l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a54

Chris Cramer, President, CNN InternationalNetworks, Atlanta

In Harm’s Way

Page 55: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r t S l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a 55

Twenty-one years ago I went to theonly other IPI meeting that I have been to.I had just got out of Argentina. At that timein Argentina the important thing was get-ting the news out, because you had a situ-ation there where self-censorship wasgoing on, intimidation and everything else.But everybody in Argentina knew verywell that people were disappearing.Journalists, of course, were primary targets.So you have had targeted journalists for avery long time. In Latin America, we havebeen dealing with it for a long time.

What we have got to consider isthat it is not just CNN, not just the “bigboys” who are under threat. It is in coun-tries that we perhaps do not know enoughabout. What happened to Danny Pearl hashappened to hundreds of journalists inLatin America and possibly thousands inthe world.

We have got to focus on all thesethings, and we have to give it tremendouspriority, tremendous visibility, so thateverywhere you go and every time youwrite, it means that you can save lives. Idiscovered that publication can save livesand this works all the time. Even the worstkind of government does not like to havebad press.

Robert Cox, President, Inter American PressAssociation (IAPA), Miami

PublicationCan Save Lives

Page 56: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I am rather surprised that at thislate date we are still called upon to dis-cuss a topic in which the word “protec-tion” appears. The word “protection”elicits a vision of armed policemen orsoldiers flanking each journalist, makingit hard to interview anyone freely in atense situation. And I do not think thatany journalist worth his salt would wantto be “protected”.

I am rather disappointed thatFreimut Duve, the OSCE Special Repre-sentative on Freedom of the Media, whowas scheduled to take part in this panel,is not here. He had advocated a specialbadge for journalists that he likened tothe Red Cross. Others objected that sucha symbol would simply serve as a target.There is the further difficulty of whowould issue such a badge and what cri-teria would be used to decide whowould get it.

It is understandable that thereshould be now new concern for the safe-ty of journalists after the killings inAfghanistan of eight of our colleagues,but the circumstances of their deathsmake it clear that no badge would havehelped them. If you examine the deathsof journalists in conflict zones, you willsee that they were either targeted delib-erately or else they were the victims ofso-called collateral damage. I have neverseen an instance in which a badge or aspecial international journalist’s cardwould have made the slightest differ-ence.

In 1985, the World Press FreedomCommittee (WPFC) undertook a study ofkillings, assaults, arrests, imprisonment,expulsions and other kinds of harass-ment of journalists. It was the first suchgeneral study of its kind and was donefor a Round Table in Switzerland for theInternational Committee of the RedCross in the midst of the protection dis-pute that was part of the New WorldInformation and Communication Order(NWICO) debate centred aroundUNESCO. Alain Modoux, who is here

today, was the one who organised thatmeeting. The idea at UNESCO was tocreate an international commission todecide who is a journalist and to issuelicence cards, and a code of conductwith procedures to ban and/or refusemembership in the international journal-ism fraternity. Concern for the safety ofjournalists is a quite different propositionthan that of protection.

The most recent manifestation ofthe concern for safety is the Charter forthe Safety of Journalists Working in WarZones or Dangerous Areas that was elab-orated by Reporters Without Borders(RSF). We at the WPFC worked very hardwith the RSF to turn it into a set of prac-tical guidelines on matters like trainingcourses, insurance, sensitisation of edi-tors to danger, and so forth. It stresses ineffect that there should be free andinformed choice by the journalists them-selves in assessing risks in tension zones.

But the WPFC had to point outthat the military authorities also need tolearn how to avoid putting journalists indanger. There was a French army train-ing-film that was shown in the midst ofthe discussions about this Charter, whichshowed the French army with a group ofjournalists, whom they had put up incamouflage uniforms and were teachinghow to scale cliffs, and so forth. We hadto point out that that was absolute defi-ance of common sense, that the journal-ists were being put into great danger bybeing placed in uniform. Even at this latedate, common sense training, commonsense remarks, are still needed.

We also need to recognise that itdefies common sense that a major newsgathering organisation, like the Italiannewspaper that lost a correspondent inAfghanistan, did not provide for herinsurance. The Charter is meant to pointup such anomalies and address itself tothe very complex and difficult problemof safety concerns for freelancers.

Every conflict has special circum-stances, so the safety tips that various

organisations have issued can sometimesin fact be contradictory. The main thingis to bank on the common sense that issharpened by experience and to remem-ber that no story is worth the life or limbof a reporter or cameraman, and that ajournalist put out of action cannot pro-vide the story.

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r tS l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a56

Ronald Koven, European Representative, WorldPress Freedom Committee, Paris

Common SenseTraining

Page 57: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r t S l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a 57

In most African regions, journal-ists have very little protection, especial-ly in situations of civil conflict, inwhich journalists are usually on one orthe other side of the conflict. A mainproblem is also how these conflicts arecovered by the international media.Taking the case of Angola, for instance,where there is only government media,journalists tend to protect themselvesthrough self-censorship. The questionis how to address that issue so as toenable journalists to perform theirduties as such.

In 1999 we saw a different trendin Angola, whereby the governmentpressured journalists even more. Andthe international media was kindenough to pay attention to the issue ofpress freedom, and focus on the issueof freedom of the press in Angola as away of guaranteeing the safety of jour-nalists.

The Angolan conflict has beengoing on for almost 40 years and if thegovernment does not invite journalists,then essentially there is no direct cov-erage of the conflict. That is why theAngolan conflict, like many other con-flicts, is simply underreported by thelocal media, unless reported throughgovernment press releases or those ofrebel officials. That is also one of thequestions that I would like to bring toyour attention. How international cov-erage of the underreported conflictscan not only help to end these con-flicts, but also increase some under-standing of what is happening in suchcountries as the Democratic Republicof Congo, Sierra Leone, Angola, andother places.

I think one of the most importantissues with regard to Africa and ensur-ing more protection of journalists is toaddress the issue of democracy and therule of law. If that is not done properly,if institutions are not in place to enforcelaw, then there is very little that can bedone to ensure the protection of jour-

nalists. I think that it is especially im-portant in conflict areas. If the conflictin itself is not addressed and if issueslike democracy are not properlyaddressed, then the conflict tends to bea breeding ground for more humanrights violations and for impunity. Andjournalists are just one of the prime tar-gets of that impunity.

Rafael Marques, Freelance Journalist; Country Director, Open Society Foundation, Luanda

Protection ofJournalists inCivil Conflicts

Page 58: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I must stress, as a founder-memberof the broadcast safety group, that so far itis only broadcasters. We have failed inattracting one single member of the pressor print business to commit themselves toour code of practice, which is aimed sole-ly at ensuring the safety of journalists inconflict situations. This is a great disap-pointment to all of us.

I would also like to stress, in thelight of what was said earlier, that we arecertainly not talking about escorted jour-nalists, we are not talking about badges,we are not talking about licenses. We aretalking purely of a commitment to practi-cal measures to protect our people in thefield. We are talking about training. ChrisCramer mentioned this. At Reuters, wehave put 500 staff and contract freelancersthrough these training courses and we arestill putting people through a course everycouple of months.

This sensitises people, it sensitiseseditors and it creates practical guidancefor journalists in the field on how to copewith situations from hostage-taking togunfire, and it works. One of our bestcameramen, Mark Chisholm, escaped theambush in Sierra Leone that killed KurtSchork, a Reuters correspondent, andMiguel Gil, the Associated Press Tele-vision Network photojournalist, preciselybecause of the training he had received inthis course. He knew exactly what to doand he did not do the sort of things thatthe untrained would have done in such asituation, and it saved his life. This hashappened time and again. This is practicaltraining and it works.

I would also stress that the broad-cast safety group, in its code of practice,specifies that journalists should not go outon their first assignment into a combatzone, unless accompanied by senior jour-nalists of experience. This is one specificclause in the code of practice that we haveadopted.

We also seek to supply “flak jacketsfor the mind”. We are acutely conscious ofthat. We commit ourselves to providing

counselling for our staff who have been inthose environments. We seek counsellingfor assigning editors who have beenresponsible for assigning a reporter whohas met death or injury or any other stress.That is very much part of what we aredoing in the broadcast safety group.

One other point I would like tomake is particularly an appeal to the printmedia. I think as journalists we do our col-leagues a huge disservice in paying littleattention overall when journalists arethreatened, or imprisoned, or killed, orbeaten up by authorities and other forces.Occasionally, as in the case of DanielPearl, it was terrific the sort of publicity itwas given, but we forget that the vastmajority of journalists who are punishedfor their work are not great internationalreporting stars. They are people workingin their own countries, exposing hugewrongdoings, and we do them all a hugedisservice by not reporting this.

As journalists, our best protection,the only thing we can do, is to create afuss. And frankly, on too many occasions,we are not even prepared to do that.When one of our cameramen was arrested- and he is still being held in the WestBank after two weeks with no explanationgiven - we were told in no uncertainwords that if we created a fuss that wouldbe the worst for him. Well, the hell with it,we created a fuss, we got one man out, weare still trying to get the other out. So, ifjournalists cannot create a fuss, what goodare we to anybody.

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r tS l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a58

Rodney Pinder, Editor, Video News, Reuters, London

PracticalGuidance

Page 59: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r t S l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a 59

To be honest, I think that Chris Cramersaid it all. I think Chris and a few others havebeen pioneers in this area for years. We arenot meeting here for the first time to discussthis issue. We have been banging about thisproblem for a decade. The fact of the matteris, and I have to be really quite clear about it,I do believe it is really time the industry got offits backside and took the issue seriously. Themajor network organisations, ITN, CNN, theBBC, Associated Press, Reuters, have wokenup to their responsibilities, they have codes ofconduct, they invest money in the safety oftheir staff. Three cheers for them!

But major mainstream media, also inbroadcasting, have yet to sign up. The recordof the press, the international press, is franklyscandalous. I think that it is very difficult toimagine any other industry where people areexpected to move into dangerous areas in theinterest of their company or their enterprise,and where they are not even given basic train-ing before they go.

We have to try to change the culturewithin the industry, but there are massiveproblems. It is not just a question of training.We have to look at the fact that most of thevictims are local, they are not internationalcorrespondents. Many of the victims are free-lancers. Many of the people who work injournalism these days, or support journalism,are freelancers. They have a vulnerable set ofcircumstances in which to work.

Another problem is the sheer expenseof a safety training programme. The Inter-national Federation of Journalists (IFJ) organ-ised earlier this year some training for jour-nalists in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Palestine,around 200 journalists altogether. It was pro-hibitively expensive, around US$ 400 to 500dollars a head, to organise that safety training.For a freelance journalist or for a small mediaenterprise this is just too expensive. When itcomes to that bottom-line, we have to find away of addressing the problem.

We also have to recognise that jour-nalists and media people need materials. Flakjackets, of course, are a good idea. The prob-lem is that it is not just a question of whetheror not I will use a flak jacket, or helmet, today.

The fact is that they are expensive. So, it isalso a question of access to these materials.

So what can we do in very practicalterms, rather than just ring our hands everyyear when we unfortunately produce the listsof those killed and injured? The internationalorganisations, media organisations specifical-ly, have a responsibility. When the interna-tional media organisations and professionalorganisations work together they can make adifference. Ten years ago, in this very hotel,the World Association of Newspapers, IFJ andother organisations got together to set up herein Ljubljana a centre to assist independentmedia and journalists in the terrible eventsthat were taking place in this region, and forfive or six years that centre provided realpractical assistance and real help.

I represent an organisation, whichmany of the people in this room will findsometimes, at a national level, to be a realpain in the neck. And there are many issueson which we disagree with each other and Iknow that, and I understand that. And youwill be happy to know that I am not going totalk about any of them.

I think that the most important thingwith regard to this issue is to build industrysolidarity and to build professional solidarityaround a common programme. And I wouldlike to suggest that the IPI and the IFJ veryseriously consider the launching of an inter-national initiative designed to pool resources;to bring together the knowledge and experi-ence which is being gained now about riskawareness and training; to create resourceswhich will allow freelancers and small, medi-um-sized media enterprises to be able to takepart in this whole range of activities to min-imise risk; and, perhaps most important of all,to take initiatives which will make the possi-bility for safety not just a First World privilegefor journalists working for big companies, buttake it into the regions where the locals aremost at risk.

If we could do that, over the next twoor three years, raising money, raising profile,giving political weight to this issue, I believewe could begin to make a difference. The IFJis really ready to take such an initiative. I

hope that the IPI and others would be ready tojoin us. Because I think it is long overdue thatwe convert this discussion into a practicalprogramme of action. So if it can be done, letus do it.

Discussion on Impunity

Rafael Marques: Let me just give an example of how

difficult it is for local journalists to follow upon the fates of their colleagues. Last year, anadministrator of a province in Angola killed ajournalist. In that particular province, becauseof the conflict, it was very difficult for jour-nalists to take a plane to go and verify thestory. So in essence, no one really knows whythe journalist was killed. All we know is thatit was a government official that killed thejournalist and that he was not punished. Ifpressure is not brought directly on the gov-ernment and especially by internationalorganisations, there is nothing that can bedone. Because those who then dare to go tothat particular province, to follow up on thestory, face the very same risk.

Just another example. In 2000, I per-sonally went to follow up on a story of a col-league who had been jailed on charges ofespionage for an article he never published. Adraft article was found on his desk and he wasarrested for that. I went to that particularprovince and stayed at a local hotel, whichbelonged to the local governor. At oneo’clock in the morning he came to the hotel toremove me.

So these are the kind of difficulties thatwe find in Africa. Sometimes you do not evenhave a place to stay, you do not even have thepossibility to fly to a specific area, to providesupport for a colleague. To fly to that specificarea, I had to make a deal with the WorldFood Programme, which has regular flights,promising that I would write a story for themin exchange for a seat. So these kind of situa-tions need to be fully addressed by internati-onal media organisations. But that work mustbe done as a prevention, not as a response towhat happens with journalists in Africa.

Aidan White, General Secretary, International Federation of Journalists, Brussels

Launching anInternationalInitiative

Page 60: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

Richard Tait: I think Rafael has absolutely put his

finger on the issue, which is enforcement,investigation. Aidan, in your experience, whydo they get away with it and what can we doto stop them getting away with it?

Aidan White: They get away with it because it is

politically expedient to allow them to getaway with it. And often, unfortunately, theauthorities themselves are directly implicat-ed. I think, therefore, we have a serious prob-lem of trying to make governments aware oftheir responsibilities. I am very worried aboutthis, because it is not just a problem of gov-ernments that are not democratic. There isalso a complacency within governments thatare in the settled democracies of the world.

We were extremely worried about thedecision to subpoena a journalist to give evi-dence at the War Crimes Tribunal in TheHague. It seems to me that the idea of callinga journalist, instructing a journalist, coercinga journalist, to give testimony about what heor she has seen as a result of an assignmentcalls into question the whole safety of jour-nalists. I think that lack of regard and lack ofrespect for the role media play in reportingconflicts exists everywhere within the politi-cal communities. Therefore, I think this ques-tion of impunity is one where we really haveto get a political commitment to respect thevalues of journalism and then to follow itthrough. And that means that governmentsthat fail to investigate properly murders ofjournalists, or attacks on media, should beheld to account. And there should be aframework for calling them to account. At themoment there is not, but I think that politicalcomplacency certainly has to be challenged.

Tait: Robert, there is a large number of

names in the “IPI Death Watch” from LatinAmerica. Why do they get away with it inLatin America and what can be about it?

Robert Cox:Well, we hope they are not getting

away with it. In this instance, I think Latin

America is ahead of everybody else. For yearsnow, we IAPA have an anti-impunity project,which consists of going back to thoseappalling cases when journalists have beenmurdered and writing about them. You cansee it on our Website (www.sipiapa.org). Theinvestigations are done by journalists workingin those particular countries where the jour-nalist has been murdered. It means going andtalking to the judges. We have had success ina number of cases, not as many as we wouldlike, but we have had successes in which thegovernment even recognised their culpability.

It is not just a question of democracyeither. In so-called democratic countries,there is an enormous problem with the judi-ciary. Judges are extremely loath to investi-gate. Our next project is to hold a summit inWashington, DC, in June. We are bringing allthe Supreme Court Justices of the Americas toWashington to discuss this problem. Theimpunity exists because judges simply do notpunish those responsible and the investigatorsdo not go into it.

Tait: Rony, do you think you make enough

of a fuss?

Ronald Koven: IAPA’s anti-impunity campaign was

long overdue and something that we havesupported as much as we could. It is time tohave a world anti-impunity campaign. Itshould not just be for Latin America and itshould not only be for the extreme casewhere the journalist gets killed. I remembergoing to Armenia and all the journalists weretelling me the story of the Armenian defenceminister who did not like a story a reporterhad written, called him into his office andbeat him. This was not reported in the Arme-nian press. We need to sensitise everybody.We need to use the resources that we have.We have the IFEX International Freedom ofExpression Exchange and so forth, but weneed to do even more about that.

We need also to tell governments thatnot only is it too politically costly to kill jour-nalists, but that there is another safety prob-

lem that governments get us into. A lot ofthem have no compunction about using jour-nalists’ credentials to mask agents of differentkinds. And that is as much a danger to thesafety of journalists as the question of reveal-ing sources.

Tait: Rodney, from Reuters’ perspective, a

major global news organisation, what successhave you had in investigating the assaults onyour staff?

Rodney Pinder:Well, I can really say that it comes

back to the point I was trying to make before.My belief in this can be summed up in threewords: publicity, publicity, publicity. I thinkthat it is no accident that when we had twocameramen picked up in Hebron, MazenDana, who is relatively well known (hereceived the CPJ’s international press freedomaward last year), was released almost imme-diately, whereas his sound man, who is not atall known, is still being held somewhere. So,the more publicity the better.

I would also like to address the prob-lems facing poorer news organisations, whocannot afford the sort of money that it takes toput 200 or 300 journalists through practicaltraining courses, and that of freelancers.When the Afghan war started up, freelancerswere being quoted insurance premiums ofUS$ 12,000 a week to protect them if theywent anywhere near Afghanistan. The RoryPeck Trust, which handles freelance issues inthe UK, is beside itself in trying to get someinsurance cover for freelancers. I think thatnews organisations which are relatively welloff and international bodies, such as the IPIand others, might well consider practicalsteps taking a lead in some sort of fund orsome sort of arrangement to help freelancersand our poorer cousins, who need help intraining and equipment. It might be some-thing practical that organisations like thiscould provide, in addition to providing thatessential pressure on governments to behavedecently.

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r tS l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a60

Discussion on Impunity

Page 61: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r t S l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a 61

Johann P. FritzThis year, the winner of the IPI/FreedomForum award is the independent Belgradedaily Danas.

Launched on 9 June 1997 by 17editors and journalists from leading inde-pendent media, Danas (Today) has man-aged to provide an accurate, impartialview of events occurring in the regionwhile standing up to constant pressurefrom the Serbian authorities.

The newspaper withstood threats,administrative harassment, stiff fines andcensorship during Slobodan Milo{evi}’swar on the independent media. It wasbanned by the Serbian Ministry ofInformation in October 1998 for violatinga decree on “Special Measures in Cir-cumstances of NATO’s Threats WithMilitary Attacks Against Our Country”,which forbade reporting that, in the gov-ernment’s view, was “unpatriotic” orfomented “defeatism, panic and fear” inthe face of possible Western military inter-vention over Kosovo. It was able to resumepublishing soon after the ban was imposedby registering and printing in Montenegro,where the decree did not apply.

In July 2000, a Danas correspon-dent, Miroslav Filipovi}, was sentenced toseven years in prison for espionage andspreading false information after writing aseries of articles that documented atroci-ties committed by the Yugoslav Army inKosovo. He was released within days ofopposition leader Vojislav Ko{tunica’sswearing in as the new president ofYugoslavia in October 2000.

Despite the change in government,Danas predicted that the new authoritieswould be still inclined to treat the media inthe same way as their predecessors didunder Milo{evi} and this prediction wassoon confirmed. Danas has been verballyattacked by officials on several occasionsbecause of its critical reporting onPresident Ko{tunica, but it continues toprovide readers in Serbia, Vojvodina,Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina,and Macedonia with free and independent

news from Yugoslavia while pursuing itsdeclared aim: “To strive for pluralism anddialogue, for the complete and thoroughprotection of basic human rights, as wellas the rights of all sorts of minorities -national, religious, cultural, and others.”

Because of all this, Danas has beennamed our Free Media Pioneer for the year2002 and I would like to call on its co-founder, chairman of the board and senioreditor, Radomir Li~ina, to come up andreceive the award.

Radomir Li~ina“Nobody likes the man who brings

bad news,” Sophocles wrote almost 2,500years ago. It stood to reason, therefore, thatmany people in the former Yugoslavia didnot like the group of journalists, assembledat the Belgrade daily Borba, who were thefirst to raise their voice against the policiesof Slobodan Milo{evi} and warn againstthe growing tide of nationalism and hatredand tendency to blame others for all exist-ing problems. Although not liked by thenew political messiahs, submissive col-leagues or broad mass of readers, theywere determined to go on.

These journalists were the real pio-neers of a free press, not only in the formerYugoslavia, but also in Central and EasternEurope. They literally blazed a trail intounexplored frontiers. They transferred aformer Communist organ into the firstpolitically independent newspaper. Theycreated Nasa Borba when the regime tookover their daily at the end of 1994, andthey started Danas in June 1997 whenNasa Borba became the victim of selfishprivate interests.

These journalists, or the media theyestablished, were persecuted, threatened,accused of being traitors and mercenaries,banned, expelled from the premises oftheir newsrooms, fined, sentenced, impris-oned, and even killed. Yet they were notstopped. Was it just a coincidence thatDanas was the most heavily fined newspa-per during the Milo{evi} era? Was it only asmall political mishap when President

Ko{tunica claimed that Danas was treatinghim incomparably worse than it ever didMilo{evi}? Is it just an accident when for-mer Yugoslav president Dobrica Cosicsues Danas and seeks 100,000 Euro indamages for his “mental suffering”, almostas much as we were forced to pay in totalunder the notorious Serbian public infor-mation law? Again, it will not stop us fromperforming our duty. We consider it a mis-sion and more than just a job.

Years of long experience tell us itwould be naive to expect the current lead-ers to be nobler than Thomas Jefferson orfor them to agree with his preference fornewspapers without a government over agovernment without newspapers. But ifSerbia’s new rulers really want to be differ-ent than their predecessors, they will haveto implement those European and Westernvalues and rules they officially embracedand stop treating the media like they areerrand boys or political mouthpieces.

Again, it stands to reason that underthe current political and social circum-stances in Serbia, the critical and inde-pendent media voices are not popular,much less adored. Determined not to pushnew dirt under the carpet, we are awarethat our task is just as tough and challeng-ing as it was under Milo{evi}. We see thisaward as a sign of appreciation for whatthe above-mentioned group of journalistsdid over the past 15 years. But, at the sametime we say thank you, we have to issueanother warning. International institutionsmust be aware of the realities in Serbia andthe sad consequences if the independentmedia were allowed to disappear. If thiswere to happen, the international institu-tions would become accomplices in newdramas that would produce unending badnews in the Balkans.

Johann P. Fritz, Director of IPI

Radomir Li~ina, Chairman of the Board/Senior Editor,Danas, Belgrade

2002 FREEMEDIAPIONEERawarded to Danas,Belgrade

Page 62: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

CHAIRPERSON

PANELISTS

H.D.S. Greenway, Columnist, The Boston Globe, Boston, MA

Owais Aslam Ali,Chairman, Pakistan Press International(PPI), KarachiMelissa Fleming,Senior Information Officer, Division ofPublic Information, International AtomicEnergy Agency (IAEA), ViennaYosri Fouda, Deputy Executive Director, Al JazeeraSatellite Channel, London (UK) BureauFernando Reinares,Professor and Chair in Political Science,King Juan Carlos University, Madrid

“Al Qaeda is a true example of globalisa-tion. They may have more bureaus inmore countries in the world than theAssociated Press.”

H.D.S. Greenway

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r tS l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a62

Sunday, 12 May 2002, 14.30

SESSION VI

TERRORISM-THE NEW THREAT TO GLOBAL SECURITYGrand Hotel Union

AP Photo

Page 63: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r t S l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a 63

There was a time when lethalitybelonged exclusively to nation-states,but now terror has been privatised andsmall groups have the ability to obtainweapons of mass destruction. Al Qaedais a true example of globalisation. Theymay have more bureaus in more coun-tries in the world than the AssociatedPress. They have been able to link thepockets of Islamic discontent that previ-ously were separated - the Middle East,South Asia, Kashmir, East Asia.

Islam does not have a monopolyon terror, nor is all terror based on reli-gion. We see now in the Middle Eastthat you have secular terror and reli-gious terror. Europe has seen its terroristtimes. It was not too long ago that left-wing terrorists - the Baader-MeinhofGang of Germany and the Brigate Rosseof Italy - were on the rampage. LatinAmerica is going through a period oftension now.

Some terrorists can be persuadedto take a political path. So far, the IrishRepublican Army (IRA) has embarkedon a new course of trying politics ratherthan terror. But one of the most stubborngroups in Europe are the Basque terror-ists, ETA. Although most Basques do notapprove of them and although theBasques enjoy perhaps more autonomythan any other minority in Europe, theterror still continues.

Some of you may have heard ofan organisation called The Covenant,the Sword and the Arm of the Lord(CSA). This was an American group inthe 1980s that believed that terrorwould bring the Messiah to earth quick-er. They had hoped to poison the watersupplies of major American cities.Happily, they were caught before theycould do so. They also had a plan toblow up the Federal Building inOklahoma City. They did not get aroundto it, but that deed was accomplished bysomebody else.

We have here today an interest-ing panel, including my friend Owais

Aslam Ali. With the attention movingfrom Afghanistan to Pakistan, Pakistan’sleader has made an historic decision tomove his country away from Islamicextremism. Owais Aslam Ali will tell uswhether he can succeed.

H.D.S. Greenway, Columnist, The Boston Globe,Boston, MA

GlobalisingTerror

Page 64: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

A couple of years ago, the U.S.State Department came out with a reportdetermining that South Asia had becomethe main focus of terrorism and terrorismconcerns. I would like to go into a coupleof reasons for the culture of militancy andterrorism in South Asia, which are a con-sequence of actions by the former andpresent super powers.

Pakistan became independent in1947 after a long struggle by the BritishMuslims of India for a homeland. Indiawas partitioned into two parts, India andPakistan. The British, however, left unde-cided the fate of the Muslim majority stateof Kashmir. Many believe that this was inline with an established “divide and rule”policy of the British government and ithas had a devastating consequence forSouth Asia and the rest of the world, aswe are finding out. Within a year, bothcountries had gone to war over Kashmirand since then Kashmir has set the patternof relations between India and Pakistan.

Pakistan felt insecure about facinga rival many times its size and made twobasic, fundamental policy decisions thathave shaped the fate of the country. Thefirst was to become part of the variousanti-Communist alliances created by theUnited States. The second was to estab-lish a close link with the Muslim coun-tries. It was felt this would give the coun-try more strategic depth. Since Inde-pendence, Pakistan and India have foughtthree wars over Kashmir. When they arenot at war, they are either close to war orthey are on the brink of war and this hasbeen the unfortunate pattern of behav-iour. This terrible state of affairs was takento a new dangerous level by the nuclearexplosions of 1998, by both India andPakistan. The two countries have ignoredthe terrible poverty and filth in favour ofmilitary might and the decision to active-ly pursue a nuclear and a missile pro-gramme may have condemned our futuregenerations to poverty.

As I see it, the Kashmir issue is theonly major issue of contention between

India and Pakistan. I also believe that it isa solvable issue. However, the govern-ments of both countries seem to becaught in a rut and have been unable tohave serious and sustained negotiationsand dialogues during the last 50 years.Thus, I sincerely feel that the internation-al community needs to do its part to facil-itate sustained discussion between thetwo countries. We have seen that when-ever there is a dialogue, the entire atmos-phere of mistrust changes perceptibly. In aday or two the transformation is reallystriking for those who live in Pakistan andIndia. And the reason is that the twocountries, the governments of both coun-tries, have not succeeded in demonisingthe other. That is a great thing to build on.

A dialogue on Kashmir is theabsolute first step to reduce the intensefeeling among the Pakistani people,which restricts actions that the Pakistanigovernment can take in tracking downmilitant extremist groups. There has to bevisible progress on the Kashmir issuebefore the people will support thoseactions.

The second major internationalstep which had an impact was the Afghanwar against the Soviet occupation. Thishas had perhaps an even greater impacton Pakistani society than the long-stand-ing Kashmir dispute. When decidingupon a strategy on how to oust the SovietUnion, Pakistan and America had tocome up with a slogan. They could havechosen a slogan that highlighted Afghanindependence or the fight againstCommunism. They chose neither. Instead,both America and Pakistan jointly decid-ed that the slogan should be the Jihad.

The fight against the Soviet occu-pation was to be a Jihad against the infi-dels. By cynically choosing this slogan,the whole infrastructure of the Jihad wasbuilt. And this infrastructure was robustenough to defeat the Soviet Empire. Itscharacteristics - and they have all comeback to haunt us - included a decen-tralised fighting force called the Muja-

hedin, holy warriors controlled by inde-pendent warlords.

Secondly, support for the Jihadfrom Muslim countries. All Muslim coun-tries were asked to contribute volunteersto the noble cause of the Jihad and volun-teers came from everywhere, fromAlgeria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Phi-lippines. Thus, Pakistan became the inter-national centre for the training of theseforces. The Mujahedin were armed withmodern weapons, including the famousStinger missiles. The task of managing theoperations was given to the Pakistaniintelligence agency, the now famousInter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

Finally, and most importantly, anideological foundation had to be provid-ed for popularising Jihad as a central pil-lar of Islam. Until the 1980s, the Sufi orMystic version of Islam was predominantin Pakistan and South Asia. This versionof Islam emphasises tolerance and theuniversality of love, but it is hardly suitedfor fighting a war. Thus, a militant versionof Islam was created and promoted, andthis has changed the very character ofPakistani society.

In the negotiations for the with-drawal of Soviet troops, Pakistan insistedthat the withdrawal should be linked tothe installation of a Mujahedin govern-ment, but those were the days of Glasnostand the Perestroika, and the United Stateswas in a hurry to make a fresh start withthe Soviet Union and opposed this pre-condition. The Soviets withdrew in 1989,but the war between the Mujahedin andthe Communist regime of PresidentNajibullah continued for another threeyears. This was followed by another threeyears of civil war, among rival Mujahedingroups, and then of course came theTaliban.

After the fall of Najibullah, theinternational community, particularly theUnited States, lost interest in Afghanistan,and Pakistan was left on its own to man-age the three million refugees and power-ful, heavily armed factions. There is no

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r tS l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a64

Owais Aslam Ali, Chairman, Pakistan PressInternational (PPI), Karachi

A Culture ofMilitancy andTerrorism

Page 65: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r t S l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a 65

question that Pakistan did a terrible job ofan already bad situation and made easybut wrong choices. Pakistan felt that it didnot have the capacity to control these fac-tions and thus followed a policy of toler-ating the armed groups in the hope thatthe attention of the groups would befocused outwards and not within thecountry. This was wishful thinking, asPakistan has been profoundly affected bythe terrible sectarian violence and brutali-sation of society.

This tolerance gave militantextremist groups the freedom to developand become financially self-sustainingand viable. Not only through foreign andlocal funds and trade in drugs, but alsothrough smuggling of illegal goodsbetween Pakistan and Afghanistan.

So what happens now? First of all,the Afghan refugees need to go back toAfghanistan. That is a very fundamentalthing that must happen and you need tohave a situation where they can returnback to their homes in safety. You cannothave any solution to terrorism as long aslarge numbers of people are moving freelybetween Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Besides this, I would say that inmany Muslim countries, including Paki-stan, there are many domestic reasonswhy militant groups find support amongstthe people. Of course, a lack of democra-cy is one of them, but equally importantare the terrible inequities within thesecountries. This dehumanises a greatmajority of the people and it should berecognised as one of the driving forceswhy people choose militant ideologies.

Equally important are the bad gov-ernments in many countries. Pakistan, apoor country with a population of 140million, suffers from misplaced priorities.Almost three-quarters of the nationalbudget goes to military spending and pay-ment of international debt. It has to man-age development and non-developmentexpenditure from the remaining one-quar-ter of the budget. These include the every-day needs of health, education, sanitation.

So what has changed? I think thefirst thing that has changed is the realisa-tion in the United States that problems fes-tering in far away places can have devas-tating consequences for their security. Ithink this is a key thing that has changed.

In Pakistan, there has been a basic changein direction. Pakistan put itself on the linein choosing to become a front-line state inAmerica’s coalition against terrorism.Pakistan has made a determined effort totackle militant groups and this is continu-ing, although the Kashmir issue remains avery big stumbling block.

Thankfully, things have gone fairlysmoothly so far. Many times before,Pakistan has tried to tackle militancy buthad to back down in the face of deter-mined opposition. This time it did notback down because of American pressureand so the militants, the extremists, wereforced to show their hand and it becameclear that it was not a very strong hand.They were not able to mass nationalmovement against the change of policy.This is very important. It is important torealise that in all the elections, the funda-mentalist parties have never won morethan five per cent of the electoral votes.That is why it is important that thereshould be democracy, that there shouldbe elections. Islamic parties shouldbecome a part of the political process.This would help reduce militancy.

A Culture of Militancy andTerrorism

Page 66: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

One of the roles of the Interna-tional Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), theUN’s global nuclear body, is to be theaccountant for all nuclear material in theworld and to know how many facilitiesare functioning and whether they arefunctioning safely and with adequatemeans of security. Let me give you aglobal overview of the nuclear sector.There are 440 nuclear power reactors inthe world, 600 research reactors (theseare typically used at universities,although only 200 are in operation) and504 fuel cycle facilities. Also, one of thekey themes regarding nuclear terrorism isthe widespread use of radioactivesources. There are tens of thousands ofhighly potent radioactive sources in use,for example in hospitals for people whoneed radiotherapy. These are new poten-tial threats we are looking at.

Just to give you an idea what theIAEA is dealing with, our agency is basi-cally the housekeeper or the accountantfor 111,000 “significant quantities”, thatmeans 111,000 potential nuclear bombs.We do not deal with military, highly-enriched uranium and plutonium. Thereare 1,000 tons of this in existence in thefive nuclear weapon states. And as I men-tioned, there are a large number ofradioactive sources in medicine andindustry, unfortunately with very lax con-trol. One of the major problems is thatonce they have lived out their lifespanthey are often discarded and no one real-ly knows where they are. In fact, therewas a news story recently that thenuclear regulatory commission in theUnited States acknowledged that it wasmissing about 1,600 radioactive sourcesand did not know where they were.

So how real is this nuclear threat?You, as members of the press, have beendoing quite a good job of making thepublic aware that it is a real threat, whileI, as the spokesperson for the IAEA, havespent a lot of time on the telephoneresponding to this and convincing ourAgency that we have to react, that we

have to take a position and encouragegovernments around the world to takeaction. And that is what we did inNovember last year, when we issued apress release publicly saying that webelieved a nuclear attack was far morelikely since September 11 than before.We also raised awareness with regard tothe issue of so-called radiological disper-sal devices, more popularly known as“dirty bombs”.

The IAEA in November outlinedfour areas in which it determined therewere threats in terms of nuclear terrorism,the first being our biggest nightmare,namely that terrorists could steal anuclear warhead. You have probablyread stories quoting General AlexanderLebed, who said that there were at least40 suitcase nuclear bombs missing andthat no one knew where they were, andother horror stories about loose nuclearbombs. We believe that this is a veryunlikely scenario. Nevertheless, we havecalled upon the five nuclear weaponstates, and the other states that are knownto have nuclear weapons, to revisit secu-rity of their nuclear weapons.

The second key threat is nuclearmaterial, highly-enriched uranium orplutonium that could be used to manu-facture a nuclear weapon, but also high-ly unlikely. To give you an example ofwhy we think this is unlikely, SaddamHussein, who, as you know, had a clan-destine nuclear programme that was dis-covered only after the Gulf War, spent tenyears and between US$ 10-40 billion toconstruct a nuclear weapon and our peo-ple determined that he was still two yearsaway. So imagine Al Qaeda, in a cavesomewhere, constructing a nuclearweapon, without the means of a state. Iwant to point out that we have beenfocusing all of our efforts and money onthe diversion of a state from their civilianprogramme to a clandestine nuclear pro-gramme. Very little focus has been on thenon-state actors, on the terrorists. It iselusive, we do not know very much

about it, but we believe their ability toconstruct a nuclear weapon is very low.

Of major concern though is thethird threat, which is probably reportedin the press the most, namely the threat ofusing other radioactive material found inhospitals and industry, etc., to createpanic, cause terror, make a so called“dirty bomb”. This could easily be done.Probably the person who did it would diefrom radioactive overexposure, but wehave seen that terrorists have very littleregard for their own health and thesethings radioactive material are not verydifficult to find.

The fourth threat that the Agencysees is the threat against a nuclear facili-ty. After September 11, this was the ques-tion of the day from journalists, becauseof course an airplane flying into theWorld Trade Centre raises the question ofwhat would happen if a plane flew into anuclear power plant. There was somespeculation that the plane that crashed inPennsylvania was headed for a nuclearpower plant, but we do not have any evi-dence whether that was true.

I have to say the nuclear industrywas scrambling at this point to react, andgovernments were also figuring out whatto do. The U.S. used the military, Franceused the military. It depended on thethreat. We said that nuclear power plantsare very robust. When they were de-signed, they were designed to withstandacts of terrorism. However, in the 1970s,airplanes were smaller, significantlysmaller, and carried less fuel. People didnot think they would be aimed intention-ally at nuclear power plants.

I want to spend a little bit of timeon giving you an idea of the situationwith regard to illicit trafficking in nuclearmaterial globally and to let you knowthat the IAEA has been tracking this since1993, when, after the dissolution of theSoviet Union, these incidents started tobecome significant.

We have in our database 596recorded incidents. Of these, 396 have

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r tS l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a66

Melissa Fleming, Senior Information Officer, Division of Public Information,International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna

The NuclearThreat

Page 67: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r t S l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a 67

been confirmed by the states who coop-erate with us. 175 of these involvenuclear material, that is uranium or pluto-nium, and 18 of these involve highly-enriched uranium or plutonium, which isthe material that one needs to construct anuclear bomb. 201 of these involveradioactive material and 75% of thesecases are within a criminal context.

I have to add that since 1995 oreven before the United States has spent asignificant amount of money, about a bil-lion dollars a year, in upgrading the secu-rity of nuclear facilities and nuclear mate-rial in Russia. And that has made a signif-icant difference.

What is the IAEA doing about thenuclear threat? Our focus in the past hasbeen on the threat of the Iraqs and theNorth Koreas of the world. We are a US$300 million organisation and only US$ 1million was devoted to the security ofradioactive material.

We have said that there have beenthree wake-up calls now for the worldand our organisation. The first was Cher-

nobyl in 1996. There are some nuclearpower plants out there that are really notsafe and there have to be global safetystandards for nuclear power.

The second wake-up call was Iraq,which pointed to the fact that our safe-guards were totally inadequate, that acountry could still have a clandestineprogramme, while inspectors were goingaround the country.

The third wake-up call was Sep-tember 11. We have to look at the securi-ty of nuclear material.

So what did we do? We convenedinternational experts, we got some seedmoney, we did a media campaign, andwe ended up with an action plan.

We are going to be reviewingnuclear facilities to see whether they arevulnerable to plane attacks or terroristscoming on the ground. We are strength-ening physical protection regime, that is,do nuclear facilities have state of the artsecurity equipment, are the people well-trained, could they handle theft or sabo-tage? We are continuing with our accoun-

tancy and good housekeeping job so thatwe know every gram of nuclear materialin the world that is in civilian pro-grammes and we are working on securityof radioactive sources. We are alsostrengthening our emergency responsesystem. If, in the worst case scenario,something happens, we as an internation-al group would be able to respond withinternational doctors and a team.

Finally, our message to the worldis that an unconventional threat like thisrequires an unconventional response andthe whole world needs to join together totake responsibility for the security ofnuclear material. Because radiationknows no frontiers, states need to recog-nise that safety and security of nuclearmaterial is a legitimate concern to allstates. We believe that the surest way toprevent nuclear assault is to go to thesource and the best security to preventterrorists from gaining control of nuclearweapons or materials is to make themsecure at the source.

The Nuclear Threat

Page 68: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

A few weeks ago, I was invited bythe U.S. Army Southern Command toGuantanamo Bay, Cuba. Having discov-ered that I was the only non-Western jour-nalist to have arrived from the other side ofthe Atlantic, I was approached at dinner bya fellow American journalist. He intro-duced himself, immediately asking me, in aconfused manner, “Why do you folks hateus so much?” Well, I was dumbfoundedand did not know at first how to respond tosuch a profound accusation. I knew that thesimple, direct and truly honest answer, “Ohnot at all”, would never be enough to satis-fy a psychologically-wounded Americancitizen. So I decided to be a little bit moreprofound. However, the whole eveningwas not enough for me to even begin whatI will be trying to explain here in ten min-utes.

To cut a long story short, the simpleanswer is to be found in the equation, themore you know about something, or some-one, the more understanding and the moremoderate you become. The trouble is whenyou do not know much about something,or someone, it is easier for you to developa hostile attitude towards it, or them, thanto take the trouble of trying to know just alittle bit more.

That has certainly been the moreconstant feature of the relation betweenEast and West. But out of evil, good some-times comes. A little bit came out of theatrocious day which we all now know as9/11. People who would otherwise nevergo out of their way to know about Islam,Arabs, or the Middle East, did go out oftheir way, some for the right reasons, somefor the wrong. But they all bought books,logged onto Websites, attended seminars,asked friends, or turned to other media out-lets.

One of these, perhaps the mostnotable, is Al Jazeera. We at Al Jazeeranever meant to be part of this picture, buthere we are, hopefully for the right reasons.At first, when people in the West heard wewere an Arab channel, a Muslim channel,with sole access to the Taliban controlled

territory, they wondered if we could evenoperate a camera, link it to a cable, to asatellite dish and beam a signal out. Somelooked at us suspiciously, some still do, butmany were impressed and gradually startedto appreciate our work and value our con-tribution.

Media analysts will always remem-ber that an Arab TV channel called AlJazeera was at one point the eyes and earsof everyone. And media editors will alwaysremember that a tiny TV channel based ina tiny state Qatar in the tiny Arab GulfRegion was their only available newsagency for the best part of an American-ledwar. A role we never envisioned for our-selves and a role which led some to cruel-ly label us as Osama Bin Laden’s mouth-piece.

But why, if we were so bad, wasalmost every single news organisation liter-ally queuing up at our door, offering to payhefty sums of money to rebroadcast thesame stuff for which we used to be criti-cised. It was never about the content ofwhat we were broadcasting. It was aboutwho has the right to broadcast it - when,where, how, and to what end. So patronis-ing and so hypocritical at best. So mali-cious and so ill-intended at worst.

That is not the way to defeat terror-ism. For it is at its heart just another form ofterrorism. We have been led to believe thatwe are out to get the enemies of Westerncivilisation, but at the same time we havebeen witnessing that some are trying to getthe enemies of Western civilisation bycompromising the very essence of Westerncivilisation. The argument that you areeither with us or against us shows a fright-ening lack of appreciation towards anunderstanding of the very profession ofjournalism. I do not want to be either withyou, or against you. I just want to do myjob as a journalist. Does that make me aterrorist?

The intimidation went on. VicePresident Dick Cheney, Secretary ofDefense Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary ofState Colin Powell all went on record urg-

ing Al Jazeera to tone down its coverage. AWhite House spokesman warned everyjournalist that the colour of Bin Laden’sjacket might conceal a coded message.National Security Adviser CondoleezzaRice made a conference call to U.S. mediaeditors. The same happened on the otherside of the Atlantic when Tony Blair’s advis-er Alistair Campbell summoned Britishmedia executives to 10 Downing Street.

Ironically enough, Western media,including CNN, CBS and the BBC, imme-diately invited us as guests into their ownstudios. They wanted to ask us in theirshows about freedom of the press. In otherwords, they, the Westerners, wanted us, theArabs, to defend some precious values thattook the West centuries to arrive at andthey wanted us to defend them in front oftheir own governments. This I still cannotfully understand. For the very sad reality ofthe Middle East and the Arab world in gen-eral is the shameful absence of democracyand civil liberties. That is why so manyArab governments hate Al Jazeera.

The first and most unforgivablecrime that we committed, thanks to tech-nology, was that we were able to reachArab citizens in the living rooms of theirown homes without prior permission fromthe Minister of Information. They wouldnever forgive us for so doing. In that sense,by being an eye-opener for millions andmillions of people, the majority of whomcannot even read and write, Al Jazeera isnot only a media phenomenon, but also apolitical, a cultural and an educationalone.

If we truly believe that ignorance,poverty and desperation are the devilbehind terrorism, then we should all dosomething about the way the so-calledThird World is governed. It is a disgrace forWestern leaders to even shake hands with aleader they know is in daily breach ofhuman rights, civil liberties and everythingthat Western civilisation stands for. ButAmerica and Europe prefer these kind ofleaders. They endorse them, support them,protect them and arm them.

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r tS l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a68

Yosri Fouda, Deputy Executive Director, Al Jazeera Satellite Channel, London (UK) Bureau

Out of Evil,GoodSometimesComes

Page 69: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r t S l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a 69

I would like to add a reflectionon the issue global terrorism, a reflec-tion coming from Spain, but also con-cerning the role of mass media in con-nection with terrorism.

I come from Spain and this is acountry where people have beenaffected by terrorism for well over 30years. We became a liberal democracyafter Generalissimo Francisco Franco’sdeath in 1979. Since then terrorism -90 per cent perpetrated by the terroristgroup known as ETA - has been affect-ing the process of transition, the con-solidation of democracy, killing civil-ians, mainly in the Basque Country, butalso in the rest of Spain.

This is also an interesting pointof departure because part of the AlQaeda network has been operating inthe country for the past five or sixyears. It is true that we have indica-tions that the globalisation of terrorismis already there. We had trans-nationalterrorism in the past and now we havealso global terrorism as a further step.September 11 was the most notoriousexample we have of a single incidentof this global terrorism.

Spaniards reacted to this globalterrorism event in a way that mightinterest you, because a public opinionpoll was conducted by the centre forsociological research, which is a gov-ernment-based entity, well respectedwithin the country. The poll was madeat the end of September and so wehave some reliable statistical dataabout this reaction beyond intuitionswe might have as to how Europeans ingeneral reacted. The poll showedmany things, but I will just mentionsome significant ones. As one wouldexpect, Spaniards followed the eventsof September 11 with extraordinaryinterest. But 80 per cent of theSpaniards also openly expressed strongfeelings of solidarity with the people ofthe United States of America. Six out ofevery ten people thought that the inci-

dents of September 11 were not justanother single terrorist incident, butthe beginning of a new internationalterrorism era, the beginning of globalterrorism per se. And those whoresponded to the questionnaire wereconvinced of the existence of an inter-national terrorist network behind thoseattacks.

Fortunately enough, Spain isalready a consolidated liberal democ-racy and nearly seven out of every tenpeople interviewed said that we haveto fight against terrorism eroding thecivil liberties that we enjoy as citizensof a democratic country. Indeed, as cit-izens of a country heavily affected bytrans-national terrorism (ETA, likemany other terrorist groups, alreadyoperates across borders), the Spanishare highly supportive of internationalcooperation. Nine out of every ten ofthose people polled were in favour ofthat.

So you see, people affected byterrorism, perpetrated on a systematicbasis by trans-national terrorist organi-sations such as ETA, are highly sensi-tive to international cooperation.Spaniards know very well that evenwhen you have a successful anti-terror-ist policy, it is an internal governmen-tal policy and unless you have interna-tional cooperation that policy has lim-its, or obvious constraints. It is not byaccident that the government of Spainhas been pushing for internationalcooperation.

For instance, it was very curiousto see in the aftermath of September 11how all the member states of theEuropean Union were seeking theestablishment of a special terrorismunit or branch within Europol. It wasvery curious for Spaniards because inthe first half of the 1990s when theEuropol Convention was being dis-cussed by the member states of theEuropean Union, terrorism was notincluded as an objective. It was finally

included as a result of the pressure ofthe Spanish government.

When referring to the liberaldemocracy response to terrorism, weare talking not only about the state’sresponse, but also about society’s reac-tions and this is why I emphasise thepublic opinion response. But I want tomake an additional last point in thissense. We expect the state to respondaccording to the principles and proce-dures of democracy and we alsoexpect civil society to react internallyand also across countries. Unfor-tunately, in terms of civil societyresponse, things are not as clear aswhen referring to inter-governmentalcooperation, and the press too oftenoffers examples of this.

For example - and allow me totalk about the American mediabecause I was talking before about theterrorist attacks of September 11 - toooften the American media tends tospeak about terrorism only when refer-ring to groups or organisations perpe-trating acts of terrorism againstAmerican interests, American nation-als, American citizens. You can imag-ine how deeply frustrated Spaniardsfeel when a terrorist organisation likeETA is rarely depicted by the Americanpress as a terrorist organisation. Evenwhen it is systematically targeting jour-nalists and the free media in theBasque Country, and elsewhere.

A few weeks ago, ETA tried tokill a young Basque Socialist politicianby putting a bomb under his car.Fortunately, he was not killed, but helost both his legs. Do you know howthe International Herald Tribunereported this incident? The title of theFebruary 20 issue was “Basque BombWounds Politician”. What do theymean by “Basque Bomb”? Was myfamily involved in the plot? There areBasques who are nationalists and thereare Basques who are non-nationalists.Among Basque nationalists, you have

Fernando Reinares, Professor and Chair in PoliticalScience, King Juan CarlosUniversity, Madrid

Reflectionsfrom Spain

Page 70: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

democrats and non-democrats. Wouldit not have been easier to write, “ETABomb Wounds Politician”? Or, moreprecisely, “ETA Bomb Targets BasquePolitician”, because the target was aBasque politician, a Basque citizen, aBasque representative elected byBasques, who, in 1979, approved byreferendum the Statue of Autonomy, inwhich the Basques formed their ownAutonomous Community.

Most of the scholars in theUnited States know nothing about thiswhen they speak about ETA, so you

can imagine the effect this kind of titleand information - where ETA is nevermentioned as a terrorist organisationbut rather as a Basque party or group -has on the public at large. What wouldthe Americans think if we in Spain, orin other European countries, talkedabout the Al Qaeda network as globalinsurgents or an anti-globalisationorganisation?

Considering the fundamentalrole the media has in shaping people’sattitudes and in framing people’sknowledge about other contests, this

kind of thing can only play into thehands of the terrorists, because thenETA will be able to go to the UnitedStates for fundraising purposes andpresent themselves as the Basquesaccording to the international andAmerican press. So we need coopera-tion, not only between states, but alsobetween civil societies, in order tofight trans-national and global terror-ism.

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r tS l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a70

Reflections from Spain

Page 71: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r t S l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a 71

RESOLUTION ON THE FORMATION OF THEAFRICAN UNION

The International Press Institute(IPI), meeting in Ljubljana, Slovenia, forthe IPI World Congress and 51st GeneralAssembly (9-12 May 2002), notes that thenations of Africa are about to form theAfrican Union, a continent wide forum tobring about greater political, economic,legal and social collaboration.

IPI calls on the founding membersto ensure that freedom of expression andfreedom of the media are core principlesof the constitution of this body. IPI firmlybelieves that strict adherence to thesebasic human rights and the means to makethem enforceable are the keys to its suc-cess.

RESOLUTION ON KENYAN MEDIA LAW

The International Press Institute(IPI), meeting in Ljubljana, Slovenia, forthe IPI World Congress and 51st GeneralAssembly (9-12 May 2002) has learnedwith shock that the Kenyan Governmenthas imposed far-reaching restrictions onnewspaper companies and book publish-ers in a revised law that has raised pub-lishing financial guarantees by 100-foldand criminalizes the sale of publicationsfor which these guarantees have not beenexecuted. Non-compliance of these newmeasures would lead to huge penalties,including imprisonment of publishers anda total ban on publishing.

IPI views this as a form of censor-ship, which is designed to restrict themedia during the forthcoming GeneralElection, and calls for its immediate with-drawal.

IPI also noted with dismay recentdevelopments in which Kenyan courtshave been awarding exorbitant damagesin defamation suits. This is likely to putnewspapers out of business and IPI callson the Kenyan Court of Appeal to set thecrippling awards aside.

RESOLUTIONSadopted by the 51st IPI GeneralAssembly

on Sunday, 12 May 2002

Page 72: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

RESOLUTION ON NEPAL

The International Press Institute(IPI), meeting in Ljubljana, Slovenia, forthe IPI World Congress and 51st GeneralAssembly (9-12 May 2002), strongly con-demns the suspension of fundamentalrights, including the right to freedom ofopinion and expression (article 12.2 a)and the Press and Publication Right (arti-cle 13), that are granted by the constitu-tion of the Kingdom of Nepal.

These rights were suspended on 26November 2001 as a consequence of thedeclaration of the nationwide “State ofEmergency” by King Gyanendra, made onthe recommendation of the council ofministers and in accordance with article115 of Nepal’s Constitution.

According to the constitution, suchan emergency proclamation can remain inforce for six months and may be renewedby Parliament for a further six months. IPIcalls on the Nepal Parliament not torenew the State of Emergency and there-fore ensure that all fundamental rights andfreedoms are granted.

Furthermore, IPI urges the govern-ment to release nearly 100 journalists cur-rently held in Nepali prisons as a conse-quence of the State of Emergency.

RESOLUTION ON SYRIAN JOURNALIST NIZARNAYYOUF

The International Press Institute(IPI), meeting in Ljubljana, Slovenia, forthe IPI World Congress and 51st GeneralAssembly (9-12 May 2002), expresses itsoutrage at the fatwa against Syrian jour-nalist Nizar Nayyouf. The fatwa, issuedlast month by the Alawite sect, the powerbase of the ruling al-Assad family,includes a US$ 250,000 reward for killingthe journalist.

Due to take part in the IPI Con-gress, Nayyouf, who is in France for med-ical treatment, was forced to withdrawbecause he must appear in a French courton 9 May to face criminal defamationcharges brought by the former Syrian vice-president, Rifat al-Assad.

IPI renews its condemnation of theharassment and violence against theNayyouf family and calls on the SyrianPresident Bashar al-Assad to halt theongoing campaign against them. The cur-rent fatwa stands in clear opposition to thepolicies of political reform established atthe beginning of his presidency.

RESOLUTION ON VIOLATIONS AGAINST THEMEDIA IN THE PALESTINIAN TER-RITORIES

The International Press Institute(IPI), meeting in Ljubljana, Slovenia, forthe IPI World Congress and 51st GeneralAssembly (9-12 May 2002), condemns thesustained attacks on media freedom thathave been committed both by the Israeliarmy and the Palestinian authoritiesagainst journalists in the Palestinian terri-tories.

Since the beginning of thePalestinian Al Aqsa intifada in September2000, four journalists have been killedduring Israeli military actions. More than180 incidents of violations against pressfreedom have been recorded in theregion, most of which were committed bythe Israeli side.

IPI calls upon the Israeli authoritiesto remedy the Israeli army’s lack ofaccountability for the actions of its sol-diers and the sustained harassment ofmedia workers, primarily in the form ofshootings, beatings and arbitrary deten-tions. It also calls upon the Israeli authori-ties to reverse its decision on the non-renewal of press accreditations forPalestinians, and to remove obstructionspreventing journalists from carrying outtheir profession. These include restrictionson the media’s access to Palestinian areasunder Israeli siege or occupation, thedeportation of journalists, and the illegalseizure and confiscation of reportingmaterials and equipment.

There have also been numerousPalestinian violations of press freedom,including the killing of two journalists. IPItherefore calls upon Palestinian civiliansand the Palestinian National Authority tocease their acts of intimidation againstjournalists and the confiscation of theirequipment.

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r tS l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a72

Page 73: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r t S l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a 73

RESOLUTION ON ITN JOURNALISTS AND THESAVILLE INQUIRY - CONFIDEN-TIALITY OF SOURCES

The International Press Institute(IPI), meeting in Ljubljana, Slovenia, forthe IPI World Congress and 51st GeneralAssembly (9-12 May 2002), condemns thedecision by Lord Saville to demand thattwo ITN journalists - working for Channel4 - reveal their sources to his inquiry intothe events of Bloody Sunday in Lon-donderry (Northern Ireland) in 1972.

IPI fully supports the journalists’refusal to give the names of the soldierswhom they interviewed in 1997 - eventhough they now face fines or prison sen-tences.

IPI believes that a free press is seri-ously damaged if state institutions do notrespect the need for journalists to protecttheir sources - and calls on Lord Saville toreconsider his actions.

RESOLUTION ON LEGAL AND ADMINISTRA-TIVE HARASSMENT

The International Press Institute(IPI), meeting in Ljubljana, Slovenia, forthe IPI World Congress and 51st GeneralAssembly (9-12 May 2002), condemns theuse of legal and administrative threats tointimidate and suppress the media.

In a number of countries aroundthe world there are governments preparedto divert the institutions that in a demo-cratic society should underpin the rule oflaw to permit the free flow of information.

Over the last two years, this type ofpressure on the media has increased. Forinstance:- targeted raids by masked tax police,- civil laws stipulating that companies

cannot run deficits for more than twoyears,

- disproportionate value-added-taxes onthe sale of newspapers,

- government-inspired increases in theprice of news print,

- government-instigated attempts to limitprivate ownership of independentmedia,

- prohibiting the printing and/or distribu-tion of critical independent massmedia, wherever government owned orgovernment controlled printing plantsand distribution systems have a monop-oly, and

- pressures on independent privatebroadcasters in countries where theyare required by law to use the transmis-sion systems of government broadcast-ing organisations.

Accreditation is another problemfor the media with journalists being pre-vented from reporting by governmentswhich claim the journalists have failed tomeet the demands of overly bureaucraticlaws.

Freedom of the media is an essen-tial and fundamental element of any dem-ocratic society and governments must doeverything possible to ensure that this rightis upheld.

Bearing the above in mind, the IPImembership calls on all governments torefrain from suppressing the mediathrough spurious legal and administrativeactions.

Page 74: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

RESOLUTION ON TERRORISM AND THE NEWSMEDIA

The International Press Institute(IPI), meeting in Ljubljana, Slovenia, forthe IPI World Congress and 51st GeneralAssembly (9-12 May 2002), warned that itis dangerous to limit civil liberties underthe pretext of combating terrorism. Thebest antidote to intolerant ideas leading toterrorist acts is the fullest possible publicexposure, both of the false reasoning usedto justify those acts and their inhumaneconsequences.

The struggle against internationalterrorism has led governments, includingsome of the world’s most establisheddemocracies, to seek dangerous controlsover the free flow of information, freedomof expression and the freedom of the newsmedia.

IPI firmly believes that the best wayto reassure the public is for official poli-cies and actions to counteract terrorismalso to be given maximum possible dis-closure consistent with the protection ofhuman life.

Official calls for censorship or self-censorship, both of the traditional newsmedia and those using new communica-tion technologies, are at best misguided -as are restrictions on the movements andother newsgathering activities of presspersonnel.

The members of the IPI are con-vinced that democratic societies can bestdefend themselves within the frameworkof legislation that respects free speech,whether enacted prior to or after Sep-tember 11, concerning ongoing securityconcerns and operations.

IPI agrees with the following state-ment made in the resolution on Terrorismand Media adopted by media profession-als and press freedom groups at a 1 - 2May 2002 UNESCO Conference held inManila, the Philippines, by media profes-sionals and press freedom groups, “Any

strategy to address the threat of terrorismmust promote greater respect for freedomof expression and of the media, ratherthan imposing restrictions on these funda-mental rights.”

IPI fully endorses the Manila reso-lution, which contains provisions on theright to report on terrorism and the safetyof journalists. In particular, IPI supportsthe central tenet of the Manila resolutionthat “States at peace, as well as all partiesto conflicts, should take effective meas-ures to ensure that they, military forces,combatants, as well as secret and intelli-gence services and other officials engagedin combating terrorism, understand andrespect the rights of journalists ... as wellas their right to freedom of expression.”

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r tS l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a74

Page 75: IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana SLOVENIA · IPI 2002 Congress Report Slovenia - Ljubljana 5 In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared full independence from the Socialist

I P I 2 0 0 2 C o n g r e s s R e p o r t S l o v e n i a - L j u b l j a n a 75

Published by:The Slovenian IPI National Committee

Chief editor:Mitja Mer{ol

Editors:Boris BergantJirka Cvetko

Design:Dane Petek GALdesign

Layout:CameraDate:

January, 2003