Further to various official investigations into the war in Iraq and millionaire newspaper magnates, it is worth remembering that not everyone in the media purveys fake exclusives or needs to hire lawyers to fight accusations of embezzlement. Alongside the dross are men and women prepared to risk their lives for the Quixotic cause of reporting news from the world's worst places.
The task of recording the names of those who don't make it back falls to the International Press Institute. At first glance its roll call of the dead makes grimly predictable reading: 10 journalists killed in Iraq this year; two in Palestine; another two in Colombia.
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
Go into the institute's archives from the 1990s and you find that journalists were being killed by accident or design in the former Yugoslavia and Sierra Leone, which again seems to make sense.
It's only when you stand back you realize that not all of these countries are or were the worst places on earth. North Korea is and was, but no foreign journalists have been killed there. Wild-eyed refugees talk of gulags and death squads and famines claiming the lives of millions, but newspapers and aid agencies can't verify their claims because it is all but impossible to report freely from North Korea.
As in former president Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the few reporters who are allowed in have secret police escorts who ensure that they don't talk to anyone they're not meant to talk to or see anything they're not meant to see.
There's a bell curve in the international appreciation of atrocity. Safe countries receive no coverage for the obvious reason that there are no atrocities to cover in, say, Denmark or Belgium.
The curve climbs up from these dull lowlands and hits its peak in countries which are dangerous but not too dangerous to make reporting from them impossible -- today's Iraq and the former Yugoslavia in the age of Milosevic and Tudjman.
From here the curve slithers down until it reaches countries at the furthest extreme from civilized life which are either too dangerous or too tyrannical for free investigation to be an option for anyone but the recklessly brave -- the Congo and North Korea today or Iraq before the war. The lesson for tyrants is that they risk becoming the objects of global outrage when they are not tyrannical enough.
The rulers of Sudan know it well. Foreign journalists aren't murdered there, but pretty much everyone else is. An extraordinary Islamist regime filled with apocalyptic fervor of the fundamentalist revival has enslaved Christian and animist tribes in the black, African south as it prosecuted a civil war which has claimed the lives of 2 million people since the early 1980s. Two million is the provisional estimate of the number killed by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. But while every politically sentient person has heard of Pol Pot and the killing fields, I doubt if many know of President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan and Hassan al-Turabi, a cleric who provided the ideological justifications for the terror until he fell out with his murderous patron. If the names ring a bell, my guess is that you are active in one of the Christian or human-rights campaigns which has doggedly monitored the extermination campaigns. The killings have subsided and there is now a faint hope of a peace agreement. But this seemingly happy prospect has only made the randomness of global compassion more unhinged and unprincipled.
This year is the 10th anniversary of the genocide in Rwanda. It has seen UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan apologize for ignoring warnings that a mass slaughter was about to begin, and every Western government accept that they were guilty of sins of omission, except, inevitably, the French, whose despicable role in Rwanda came close to the sin of commission.
As the air was filled with the drumming of chests being beaten and the cries of "never again" being bellowed in all languages except French, another African disaster was being ignored. Since the autumn of last year, Arab militias have driven 1 million people from their homes in the Darfur province of Sudan. Government forces have overseen and participated in massacres, the summary executions of civilians and the burnings of towns and villages. Those who escaped now face the risk of famine.
Few outside Sudan cared or indeed noticed until Human Rights Watch issued the first of two terrible reports last month -- available on www.hrw.org for readers with strong stomachs. Steve Crawshaw, its London director, told me how he had to hammer away at the doors of newspapers, television stations and government departments before he could get them to take notice -- which, to their credit, a few eventually did.
Sudan is totalitarian in the Islamist north and anarchic in the war-ravaged south. But the difficulties of reporting from the countries at the far end of the atrocity curve can't account for the months of indifference on their own. Human Rights Watch was able to send investigators into Darfur, after all, and they got out to tell their stories. The phoniness of the promise of media pluralism has its part to play.
The breaking of the print unions' power by Rupert Murdoch was meant to give the public more choice in the newspaper market; cable and satellite were meant to bring more choice to television viewing; and the Internet was meant to deliver an unstoppable torrent of divergent news and views. In the event, if more hasn't always meant worse, it has often meant more of the same. Everyone does what everyone else is doing and piles resources into the big story of the day.
At the time of the Rwandan massacres, the rich world's media were obsessed with the OJ Simpson case. When the Taliban and al-Qaeda were persecuting women, exterminating Shia Muslims and plotting the destruction of US embassies and warships, all eyes were staring at the stains former US president Bill Clinton left on Monica Lewinsky's dress. Today it's Iraq.
Beyond the media's tunnel vision lies the persistence of the habit of the rich world using the poor world to buttress its prejudices. In the Cold War the Left highlighted the crimes of capitalism in Chile, South Africa and East Timor; the Right preferred to concentrate on the slave empires of Stalin and Mao Zedong (毛澤東). Iraq epitomized the screaming hypocrisies of both sides.
When Saddam was the de facto ally of the US and Europe, Western governments muted their condemnations of his crimes while the Western Left pledged its undying support to the Iraqi opponents of a fascist regime. When Saddam
invaded Kuwait, Western governments denounced him as a new Hitler while the scoundrel wing of the Western Left dropped the Iraqi dissidents overnight and began to mutter excuses for their former enemy.
The 1990s were meant to bring an end to all of that humbug and see the triumph of universal
values of human rights, but what advances they made haven't always been confident. It still helps the oppressed to have a powerful constituency in the rich world with a political, ethnic or religious interest in lobbying on their behalf.
I mean no disrespect to the Christian charities which have had the thankless task of monitoring the Sudanese disaster when I say that one great problem the inhabitants of Darfur face is that they aren't Christians. A second is that they aren't the victims of capitalism.
Darfur is a Muslim province, and as Human Rights Watch points out, the massacres are a straightforward race war by Arab Muslims who want to ethnically cleanse African Muslims and steal their land.
The UN has been as useless as it was in Rwanda. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Bertrand Ramcharan suppressed a report his own officials had made on the `reign of terror in Darfur.'
Earlier this month, the UN followed that ignoble performance with a gesture so insulting that the word "contemptuous" doesn't begin to cover the ground: its members elected Sudan to a seat on the UN's Human Rights Commission. The votes came from other African dictatorships, but the desire of thieves to stick together isn't the end of this bitter story. Democratic governments have worked to bring an end to the civil war in the south between Muslims and Christians.
There is the possibility of a settlement to what has been one of the worst conflicts of our time.
Crawshaw and many others suspect that the international community's bluff has been called by the Sudanese government; that there is an implicit threat that if diplomats and ministers make a fuss about Darfur then it will wreck the peace deal in the south. In other words, atrocity must be allowed to flourish so other atrocities can be prevented.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS