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
China has long sought shortcuts to developing semiconductor technologies and local supply chains by poaching engineers and experts from Taiwan and other nations. It is also suspected of stealing trade secrets from Taiwanese and US firms to fulfill its ambition of becoming a major player in the global semiconductor industry in the next decade. However, it takes more than just money and talent to build a semiconductor supply chain like the one which Taiwan and the US started to cultivate more than 30 years ago. Amid rising trade and technology tensions between the world’s two biggest economies, Beijing has become
With a new White House document in May — the “Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China” — the administration of US President Donald Trump has firmly set its hyper-competitive line to tackle geoeconomic and geostrategic rivalry, followed by several reinforcing speeches by Trump and other Cabinet-level officials. By identifying China as a near-equal rival, the strategy resonates well with the bipartisan consensus on China in today’s severely divided US. In the face of China’s rapidly growing aggression, the move is long overdue, yet relevant for the maintenance of the international “status quo.” The strategy seems to herald a new
To say that this year has been eventful for China and the rest of the world would be something of an understatement. First, the US-China trade dispute, already simmering for two years, reached a boiling point as Washington tightened the noose around China’s economy. Second, China unleashed the COVID-19 pandemic on the world, wreaking havoc on an unimaginable scale and turning the People’s Republic of China into a common target of international scorn. Faced with a mounting crisis at home, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) rashly decided to ratchet up military tensions with neighboring countries in a misguided attempt to divert the
Toward the end of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) final term in office, there was much talk about his legacy. Ma himself would likely prefer history books to enshrine his achievements in reducing cross-strait tensions. He might see his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Singapore in 2015 as the high point. However, given his statements in the past few months, he might be remembered more for contributing to the breakup of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). We are still talking about Ma and his legacy because it is inextricably tied to the so-called “1992 consensus” as the bedrock of his