A lot can change in five years.
In December 2005, the Guardian opened its pages for me to respond to a leak — the Bush-Blair memo in which both leaders discussed the possibility of bombing al-Jazeera’s Qatar headquarters, where more than 1,000 people work. While those who leaked the memo were imprisoned, its detailed contents were never disclosed.
Earlier this year, I learned from a senior US official that the discussions had indeed taken place. I was not surprised. Our bureaus in Kabul and Iraq had previously been bombed by the US in an attempt to stifle the channel’s independence — one of our journalists in Iraq was killed. However, this did not deter us from our mission to provide “the opinion and the other opinion” — our motto; to give a voice to the voiceless; to hold centers of power to account; and to uphold our editorial independence no matter what the cost. We maintained these values even as the US bombed our offices, continuing our coverage of both sides of the story.
The Arab world, the region in which we are located, continues to see its share of bloodshed and war. Our audience, often the victim of these conflicts, demands honesty, credibility and integrity. If we get a story wrong, or are biased, it could mean the difference between life and death for viewers. They have come to expect independence as a standard.
Recently, our independence was once again called into question. Cables from the US embassy in Doha were made accessible by WikiLeaks, alleging that Qatar was using al-Jazeera as a tool for its foreign policy. While nothing could be further from the truth, US diplomats had the freedom to express their opinions. However, they focused on the source of our funding rather than our reporting.
Judgments made in the cables are plainly erroneous, such as the assertion that we softened coverage of Saudi Arabia and Iran’s elections because of political pressure — one needs only to look at our reporting of these events to see that this is not the case. We are not driven by political agendas, for or against anyone.
Journalists across the world picked up the story and while some were careful to place it in context, many took the claims as fact.
The Guardian’s report went well beyond even what was stated in the cables — the article clearly misunderstood the rhetorical statements reportedly made by the Qatari prime minister, which then fed the false claim that al-Jazeera was a “bargaining chip.” Those who understand the Middle East also know that al-Jazeera’s coverage is no obstacle to peace in the region. Without these, journalism is another unwitting tool for centers of power.
This region is host to some of the most repressive governments in the world, where freedom of expression is silenced, journalists languish in prisons and independent civil institutions are rare. Allegations that we lack independence are part of our daily routine.
However, we take measures to protect our editorial integrity, in spite of intimidation from governments and regimes. Our journalists have been banned, imprisoned, tortured and killed. Al-Jazeera’s bureaus have routinely been closed, many times by Arab regimes with which Qatar has good relationships, but we continue to cover their stories with depth and balance.
To institutionalize our independence, we have ensured diversity among our staff and have more than 50 nationalities represented — with no majority of any one nationality.
Questions about al-Jazeera’s independence and its relationship with Qatar, our primary source of funding, are asked in almost any interview I give. Because the region has a history of state-controlled media, it’s assumed our host country must impact upon our editorial policy. However, the Qatari government has kept its distance — it is similar to the model one sees in other publicly funded arm’s length broadcasters, such as the BBC.
The Qatari prime minister openly criticizes al-Jazeera and has talked about the “headaches” caused by our independence. However, we subject state officials to the same hard questions and journalistic standards we have for everyone else. Al-Jazeera has strong editorial policies to protect its independence from the influence of power — one only has to look at the screen to witness this.
While we don’t claim to get it right all of the time (we are only human), we have got it right most of the time, placing great value on reporting from the field. Had the US diplomats actually watched al-Jazeera’s reports, they would have heard the voices and players who were shaping conflicts, wars and emerging democracies. By analyzing our content they would have gained real insight into the region.
When former US president George W. Bush declared “Mission accomplished” in Iraq and most media outlets echoed his simplistic version of events, al-Jazeera was providing pictures and analysis that predicted the coming storm. At the time, we were roundly criticized, often by states who had friendly relations with Qatar.
In Afghanistan, while others broadcast images of progress and calm, al-Jazeera highlighted the growing influence of the Taliban. In these cases and many others, time has vindicated our reporting. Had these diplomats listened to the voices in our coverage, perhaps some of their mistakes could have been averted.
Those who lobby against al-Jazeera seek to delegitimize the work of dedicated and courageous journalists who put their lives on the line. For 14 years, we have committed ourselves to safeguarding our editorial independence. Our audiences rely on us for this and we will not be affected by pressure from regimes, states, media or other centers of power. We have full confidence in our mission as journalists.
Wadah Khanfar is director-general of the al-Jazeera network.
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS