The arrest of high-profile Australian journalist Cheng Lei in China on suspicion of ‘criminal activity endangering China’s national security’ triggered a series of events that was coined by some commentators as a unique diplomatic standoff. This included Australian correspondents, Bill Birtles and Mike Smith, being barred from leaving China unless they agreed to be interviewed by police in relation to a national security case. After an accord was reached between Chinese and Australian officials allowing for Birtles to be interviewed, the travel ban was lifted.
These developments have materialised amid growing geopolitical tensions between China and Australia, especially after Foreign Minister Marise Payne called for a global independent inquiry into China’s initial handling of the COVID-19 outbreak. A trade war has ensued, with China placing tariffs on Australian barley, suspending beef imports and launching an anti-dumping investigation into Australian wine. As Birtles opined, he felt like a ‘pawn’ and that the incident appeared ‘very, very political’. It felt like a diplomatic tussle in a broader Australian-China relationship more than anything specific related to that case.’
One alarming aspect in this saga is the way in which journalists were so profoundly involved in a bilateral dispute. Arguably, only state officials and diplomats have a legitimate role in navigating matters of international politics, and independent active bystanders, or journalists, should only bear the burden of reporting and commentating on these issues. Amongst several other incidents which have eventuated in the past few years, this episode has enlivened debate on the increasing dangers of journalism. Specifically, the heightened levels of state-sponsored interference in journalism over the past decade has culminated in what might be termed as the slow erosion of journalistic independence.
The Increasing Dangers of Journalism
The past ten years have been particularly detrimental for journalism globally. Imprisonment rates have steadily grown, with Turkey, China and Egypt posing the highest risk to journalism in terms of imprisonment. As of 2018, these countries had imprisoned 68, 47 and 25 journalists respectively. In particular, the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi at a Saudi Arabian embassy in Turkey met with global outcry after allegations emerged that the killing was state-sponsored.
The predominant narrative may appear to be that journalists face increased danger in authoritarian states, as opposed to democratic. Whilst it is true that journalists may have more protection in democratic states given the emphasis on the rule of law and media freedoms, this narrative does appear to be facing an uncomfortable pivot. Liberal democracies are increasingly favouring national interests (including the preservation or amelioration of global perceptions) to the detriment of unfettered media coverage.
We don’t need to look far from home to find examples of this. In 2019, the Australian Federal Police’s raids on the ABC’s Sydney headquarters, relating to the publication of classified information on allegations of war crimes committed in Afghanistan, was deemed by the Federal Court to be legal. Whilst acknowledging that journalists should be bound by the law, ABC’s news director Gaven Morris expressed his concern for the plight of legitimate investigative journalism. He stated that ‘these sorts of rulings are a blow to the way Australians have access to information in their society.’ While the powers of national security agencies are continuously expanding, there is a genuine concern as to whether safeguards and accountability mechanisms are keeping pace.
From 2019-2020, Australia dropped five places to rank 26th on the Reporters Without Borders 2020 World Press Freedom Index, down from 21st in 2019. Ironically, one might consider this result to be excellent in light of the rankings of three other major democratic powers: the USA at number 45, Brazil at 107, and India at 142. The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) have attributed the increasing threats to journalists to the rise of populism, corruption, crime and a broader intolerance to reporting.
The function of journalists as a “watchdog” can hardly be understated, particularly in contemporary times. As British Parliamentarian Edmund Burke stated in 1790, ‘There are three estates in Parliament but in the reporter’s gallery yonder sits a fourth estate more powerful than they all.’ In modern times, this posits journalists as an imaginary fourth wing demanding accountability of the three institutions forming the separation of powers; the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. Checks and balances on each of these is necessary to guarantee the legitimacy of each of these arms’ respective functions.
The Necessity for an International Framework
In response to the Federal Court’s ruling, ABC’s managing director, David Anderson, stressed the need for ‘explicit protections for public interest journalism and for whistle-blowers.’ Amid the Committee to Protect Journalists’ (CPJ) campaign #MissingNotForgotten, established to remember at least 64 missing journalists globally, it seems a fitting time to consider establishing an international framework to protect journalists.
At present, there is no separate framework under international law with the sole focus of preserving press freedom and the rights of journalists. Measures have been limited to condemnations for breaches of journalistic rights, regional monitoring and the imposition of unilateral sanctions. In this way, international efforts to protect journalists have been largely disjointed and uncoordinated, with no global enforcement mechanism. As some commentators have observed, condemnations by the UN General Assembly, Human Rights Council or the Security Council have ‘no legal authority behind them’, and might be considered ‘meaningless or even hypocritical’.
Whilst the UN has established the “Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity”, this document appears to be drafted in highly aspirational terms with no real obligation upon states to undertake active steps to reduce state-sponsored interference in journalism. Furthermore, the Plan does not indicate an intention to increase the scope of protection for journalists through an international convention, largely because there appears to be a presumption that existing measures are sufficient. As it outlines in item 1.12, the rights of journalists are ‘internationally recognized and often legally binding. Relevant conventions, declarations and resolutions include the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the Geneva Conventions; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; UN Commission on Human Rights Resolution 2005/81; the UN Security Council Resolution 1738 (2006).’ However, this Plan relies on the existing protections that all civilians are entitled to, and fails to recognise that journalists may face higher levels of harm than other civilians: ‘Journalists’ deliberate proximity to any conflict also makes them especially vulnerable; unlike other civilians, journalists do not avoid conflict areas.’
Whilst an international convention for the protection of journalists may be criticised given its emphasis on one profession, which is unprecedented and may have the effect of excluding other professions that are vulnerable to state-sponsored attacks, there are clear benefits in establishing such a framework. Specifically, this ‘could help create more pressure for international accountability when a journalist is murdered in a country,’ and furthermore, a more structured and cohesive global effort can be taken in establishing ‘binding standards creating safeguards specifically for journalists and media workers.’
In this vein, it is maintained that the IFJ’s proposed International Convention on the Safety and Independence of Journalists and Other Media Professionals, which was endorsed by journalism unions representing more than 600,000 journalists globally, be adopted internationally. Unlike the UN Plan, this proposed Convention sets out clear minimum standards, accountability mechanisms (such as establishing a Committee on the Safety of Journalists) and steps for redress that states should commit to uphold.
Journalists are a key pillar in upholding accountability in both the public and private sectors. This is perhaps one of the reasons why in contemporary times, amid a growing global climate of corruption and extremist politics, they face heightened danger. It is appropriate to end this article with the following quote by Barry James, which speaks to the reality of the present situation: “Every journalist killed or neutralized by terror is an observer less of the human condition. Every attack distorts reality by creating a climate of fear and self-censorship.”
