Ending impunity
The International Day to End Impunity, which UNESCO commemorated yesterday, is a moment when human rights groups take stock of the violence and intimidation used to silence journalists around the world. The statistics for this year are not encouraging. The Committee to Protect Journalists reports that at least 45 journalists have been killed because of their work and 17 others killed without a clear motive. Nine out of ten of these murders will never be solved.
Six years ago, commenting on Mexico’s inadequate response to the murders of scores of journalists, the American novelist Russell Banks wrote: A nation’s journalists and writers, like its poets and story-tellers, are the eyes, ears, and mouth of the people. When journalists and writers cannot freely speak of what they see and hear of the reality that surrounds them, the people themselves cannot see, hear, or speak of it either. Whoever gouges a people’s eyes, stops up its ears and cuts off its tongue makes a nation blind, deaf, and silent.”
Instinctively, we grasp the truth of those metaphors. On the rare occasion that a journalist’s murder becomes a national or international incident, there is outrage. The killing of Daphne Caruana Galizia, an investigative journalist in Malta, or the recent murder of Jamal Khashoggi in Turkey have both caused their respective governments considerable embarrassment. But in statistical terms these cases are exceptions. Most of the time a journalist’s death receives little public notice and it serves mainly as a warning to colleagues to avoid further coverage of sensitive information. We tend to think of censorship in Orwellian terms, but it is often most effective when it takes place outside of public view. When, for instance, editors kill stories that may upset advertisers or provoke the government, or when a reporter decides not to pursue a lead that may imperil her.
Impunity is not well understood by the general public. In simpler terms it is a measure of a state’s failure to investigate and prosecute crimes. That, in turn, is an indicator of how well a society can enforce the rule of law and maintain a culture of democratic transparency and accountability. If it cannot, and powerful interests can silence the media without a penalty, corruption and violence thrive. Even a cursory knowledge of the so-called “transitional democracies” in the Americas is enough to show that wherever press freedoms are weak, deliberative democracy becomes a shell game.
Although few governments will go as far as Saudi Arabia and permit the murder of a jour-
nalist at their embassy, dozens happily tolerate a climate of fear if it serves their interests. Countries as diverse as Afghanistan, Brazil, Hungary, India, Nicaragua, Turkey and Russia show that intimidation of the press can issue from any corner of the political spectrum and that an effective defence of free expression must transcend partisan political interests. As the legendary investigative journalist I.F. Stone memorably said: “If you want to know about governments, all you need to know is two words: Governments lie.” That is why we need journalists. Unfortunately, as the Day to End Impunity makes vividly clear, very few countries guarantee journalists the protection they deserve.