In much of Africa, the challenge for journalists, editors and readers goes beyond freedom of the press, and involves its very survival. Under Nigeria's various dictatorships, for example, many journalists underwent a rite of passage that most prefer to forget: routine harassment, beatings, torture, frame-ups on spurious charges and incongruously long prison sentences.
Among the numerous victims, perhaps the most bizarre case was that of a young journalist named Bagauda Kaltho. His body was found in a hotel toilet in the city of Kaduna with the remains of a parcel bomb after an explosion that no one heard. Yet there he lay, and with a copy of my book The Man Died beside him.
The implication, encouraged by the regime, was that Kaltho was a recruit of mine who blew himself up while preparing his next bomb in a campaign of terror aimed at Sanni Abacha's dictatorship. This unconscionable fabrication was fully exposed only after Abacha's death and the spate of confessions that followed it by the police agents who actually committed the crime.
The press fought back tenaciously, despite casualties. Journalists adopted tactics of underground publication, in the best tradition of East European samizdat. When police raided one place, copies emerged from other secure depots, to be sold in the streets by kamikaze youths who darted in and out of traffic offering the subversive contraband. It did not matter that these youthful hawkers, some no more than seven or eight years old, were often arrested, beaten, and locked up for weeks, occasionally months. When they emerged from prison, they returned to their dangerous work.
But Nigeria does not offer the premier example of the awesome power of the press. That honor belongs to a different history and region. If benchmarks such as focus, mobilization, commitment, organization and sheer impact are any guide, then the prize goes to the media's baleful role in preparing the Rwandan massacre of 1994, and in directing, overseeing, and stoking the fervor of the genocidaires once the extermination of Tutsis began. It remains a sobering lesson, one that presents the media in the role of aggressor and violator, in contrast to their normal position as victim.
Those events are too familiar to require re-hashing. What matters now is the role that the rest of the African media should have played, and the questions that this raises about their capacity to function as a watchdog.
Not many Africans, even among those who are knowledgeable in world affairs, had ever heard of Radio Milles Collines, the most blatant instrument of the Rwandan genocide. It is chastening that events primarily concerning Africans enter the public domain mainly owing to the intervention of the foreign media. It was they who exposed the complicity of certain foreign powers in an ongoing crime against humanity. And it was the foreign press that detailed the parallel failure of the UN, whose agents were on the ground but whose inability to call genocide by its proper name led to a comatose response. Simply put, the African media failed to reach beyond immediate borders and serve as a voice for the continent in its encounters with the world.
The African media's response to the massacres and rapes in Darfur has been equally muted. Once again, African readers are being shortchanged, remaining dependent on foreign reportage in order to grasp the enormity of what is transpiring.
African civil society, whose mouthpiece is the press, cannot escape some measure of reproach for its failure to urge leaders to rescue fellow Africans. From Liberia to the Congo, the predicament of the African continent today demands that the press act not only as a watchdog, but as a goad. It is to the media that the continent must look for an example of solidarity.
Such solidarity should not be understood as something to be exercised only in times of convulsion. The cheap recourse to dismissive invectives such as "outside interference," "jaundiced reporting," and "imperial mouthpiece" -- so beloved by corrupt and/or repressive regimes -- is recognized as self-serving cant even by those who routinely mouth them. Africa's media must respond with its own analyses, explanations and narratives.
Unfortunately, in repressive conditions such as those in, say, Zimbabwe, Third-World journalists tend to take their cues from the conduct of their national leaders and close ranks around the continent's rogue elephants. This reflex has left Zimbabwe practically a journalism-free zone, with only the foreign press seeking to hold President Robert Mugabe to account.
Imitation appears to be a hallmark of tyrants in their exercise of power, so the absence of solidarity among Africa's journalists and Africa's peoples has created a dangerous vacuum. Today it is Zimbabwe's press that is under the gun. Tomorrow? We should all bear this in mind, for territorial ambition often goes hand in hand with the censor's creed.
Wole Soyinka is a Nobel laureate in Literature. Copyright: Project Syndicate
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations