Debate in the UN Security Council – Free journalism increasingly under threat despite resolution – News


contents

Independent journalistic reporting is difficult and often dangerous, especially in war, but at the same time enormously important. However, it is rare for the Security Council to speak about protecting media workers. Now he did it – with disappointing results.

It looks pretty good on paper: UN Security Council Resolution 2222 says everything important and correct. That independent reporting is crucial, especially in conflict zones, that it represents an early warning system when war or human rights crimes and genocides are being committed. That media workers must be protected and those who attack them punished.

“Journalists should never be targets,” said Irish Ambassador to the UN, Geraldine Byrne Nason. Neutral Ireland had scheduled the special debate in the UN Security Council to put the issue in the spotlight.

And the problem continues to worsen, stressed the UN rapporteur on freedom of expression, Irene Khan: “In many places there is no free media at all. And where they exist, they are under growing pressure, even in liberal democracies.”

In many places there is no free media at all. And where they exist, they are under growing pressure, even in liberal democracies.

Wherever journalists are looking for the truth, powerful forces want to silence them, complained Jon Williams of the media freedom organization “Committee to Protect Journalists”. “Murder is the ultimate form of censorship,” he said.

Cynicism among representatives of India

The debate in the Security Council was animated. But there wasn’t even a superficial consensus. Each country interprets the binding UN resolution according to its taste. Every country praises itself as a defender of media freedom. But everyone wants to understand something different.

The delegate of India – after all, a democracy – demanded: “Media professionals must abide by the laws of the countries in which they operate.” That is cynical, especially since in most countries the laws uphold media freedom at best in principle, but massively restrict it in concrete terms.

Accordingly, some speakers from autocratically governed countries sounded almost mocking – and even those from diplomats from democracies sometimes sounded hollow.

China against “illegal activities”

The representatives of Russia and China openly opposed critical journalism. The tenor was that Western countries should sweep their own front door instead of criticizing them.

China’s head of delegation quickly described criticism as disinformation. And said quite frankly: “China does not tolerate illegal activities.” What it means when free journalism is considered illegal is experienced by Chinese reporters and, more recently, those in Hong Kong on a daily basis.

UN Resolution 2222 has been in effect since 2015. None of the veto powers opposed it at the time. However, as is so often the case at the UN, some states sign agreements without hesitation or conscience and then interpret them as they see fit. Or they plan in advance to ignore them afterwards.

At the end of the meeting, Ireland’s ambassador summed up somewhat soberly: “The international legal framework exists, the resolution is there. What is needed now is their enforcement and the political will.” But that’s exactly what’s wrong. The Security Council debate made this all the more clear.

source site-72