Five years ago this month, Said and Cherif Kouachi stormed the Paris offices of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and, in a nightmare lasting just minutes, killed 12 people. In the days that followed, millions marched in France and elsewhere to express solidarity with the murdered journalists.
For Europeans, the Charlie Hebdo killings represented the first mass attack on journalists close to home. #JeSuisCharlie (“I am Charlie”) became one of the most popular Twitter hashtags ever. Press freedom was trending.
However, since then, the fight to defend journalistic freedom has flagged, and public mobilization has proved to be fleeting — including in the case of Charlie Hebdo.
In January last year, the magazine’s staff complained in an editorial that people no longer wanted to hear about the shootings.
“Perhaps you should move on,” they were reportedly told.
This apparent indifference has a lot to do with what many believe Charlie Hebdo represents: the freedom to express yourself in a way that might provoke others. This freedom has come under even more pressure in the past five years.
Such a trend is evident in the responses directed at journalists who shine a light on unpopular or inconvenient facts and opinions. They are exposed to a daily barrage of attacks on their integrity, including by important political leaders.
In the US, President Donald Trump has repeatedly referred to journalists who are critical of him as the “enemy of the people.” At a news conference two years ago, Czech President Milos Zeman brandished a replica of an AK-47 inscribed with the words “for journalists.”
By indulging in such behavior, these and other leaders normalize attacks against members of the press, and they are very much under attack.
According to Reporters Without Borders, 49 journalists worldwide were murdered last year because of their work. (The annual average for the past five years is even higher, at 81.)
In addition, the number of journalists who were arbitrarily detained rose to 389 last year. Threats on social media, against female journalists in particular, are an everyday occurrence, and journalists are routinely beaten up, teargassed or robbed of their equipment.
Violence against journalists is an assault on an essential pillar of democracy. As long as these attacks continue, it is not “time to move on” at all.
On the contrary, it is time for EU leaders to wake up and better protect journalists at risk. Efforts like the PersVeilig initiative in the Netherlands, in which police, public prosecutors, the journalists’ union and editors collaborate to counter violence against journalists, should be implemented across Europe.
Politicians who verbally attack journalists must be held accountable, and media organizations should do more to show solidarity with colleagues at rival outlets.
More generally, there is an urgent need for greater awareness and a stronger public defense of journalism’s value for society. There have been successful examples of this in recent years. The murders of journalists Jan Kuciak in Slovakia and Daphne Caruana Galizia in Malta sparked mass protests that forced these two nations’ prime ministers to resign.
In addition, the investigation by UN special rapporteur Agnes Callamard into the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, a columnist for the Washington Post, raised public awareness of the criminal behavior of the Saudi Arabian leadership.
These cases needed — and received — long-term attention. Still, who has heard of Norma Sarabia from Mexico or Eduardo Dizon from the Philippines, who also paid the ultimate price for practicing their profession? Nigerian journalist Jones Abiri went to prison for the second time last year on trumped-up charges, while a Nicaraguan photographer recently said that he has stopped working as a journalist for the time being, because it meant risking his life every day.
Who is standing up for these lesser-known figures?
The justice system should give higher priority to prosecuting attacks against journalists, yet a series of resolutions adopted by the UN General Assembly and Security Council has yielded limited results.
A better way to end judicial inaction would be to establish an internationally mandated investigation committee, which also would clear the way to resolving the hundreds of cold cases of journalists killed for doing their job.
Dozens of journalists are murdered every year, and in nine out of 10 cases, the perpetrators walk free. As long as such impunity exists, it pays to kill journalists.
Five years ago, we were all Charlie. Today, let us also be the hundreds of other journalists who have been killed since then.
Leon Willems is director of Free Press Unlimited.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing