Press freedom: The Sri Lankan government won the battle by effectively shutting out access and allowing only selected media to join guided tours
- Uvindu Kurukulasuriya
- guardian.co.uk, Saturday 2 May 2009 14.30 BST
Are governments at war winning the battle of controlling the international media? Of course they are. The Sri Lankan government has already won that battle.
Why am I saying this in this year’s World Press Freedom Day discussion? Because my own experience in my country, Sri Lanka, provides no alternative for me.
As the Sri Lankan government, in conjunction with the army, continues to push toward a military solution and announcing that victoryagainst the LTTE is imminent, independent information about the war has been reduced to a minimum. As one foreign correspondent said to the latest press freedom mission, “We have had no access to the field of operations for a year and now authorities refuse to give us casualty figures.” One photographer working for an international news agency said: “Now they are even banning some media from covering military parades.”
The government has decided to stop releasing figures for soldiers killed and wounded in the conflict; for the past several months, the army had already stopped releasing numbers of soldiers “missing in action”. In April 2008 the army banned the media from going into hospitals where soldiers wounded after bloody battles in the north were being treated.
There is no longer a single foreign correspondent in Jaffna. The last to leave, Vincent Jeyan, was a stringer for the Associated Press. He was forced to leave the country after receiving death threats. Almost five local correspondents for foreign outlets were forced to leave the country, including prominent journalist and CNN correspondent Iqbal Athas, Anuruddha Lokuhapuarachchi from Reuters and Gamunu Amarasinghe from the AP.
There has been a serious deterioration in the security situation for the Sri Lankan media with threats, abductions and attacks. At least 16 media workers have been killed since August 2005 and there have been numerous death threats and incidents of harassment including violent attempts to stop the distribution of newspapers. Moreover, even in cases where evidence exists of the identity of the killers, the relevant authorities have apparently taken little or no action. Those supporting negotiated settlement are often labelled as “traitors”.
The international media cannot and does not work independently of what is happening in the local media. What the government has done is effectively control the flow of information. Today, the technology has developed to a level that the distinction between the local and foreign media has greatly blurred. The internet has helped the local media to have an international reach. Therefore, controlling the local media is also equal to controlling the international media.
The government won the battle by effectively shutting out access and allowing only selected media to join guided tours. It won simply by not allowing anyone to go to the conflict area. By blocking access to civilians, including those who manage to escape the war zone and seek shelter in government-controlled areas. By refusing or delaying visas for foreign journalists. By indirect censorship. By creating a climate of fear among journalists.
The problem with winning the battle to control the media is that it cannot be sustained for a long time. It could be a classic case of winning the battle and losing the war.
The government has created a serious credibility issue. It has also allowed its adversary, the LTTE and their proxies (example Tamilnet) to resort to similar tactics. Overall, when the audience is aware that journalists and independent observers have no access to the information, they tend to believe the horror stories coming out from the opposition.
Last week AP carried a story that 6,500 civilians had been killed, quoting UN documents. In the same week the foreign minister, addressing heads of diplomatic mission, said where the security forces were concerned there were zero casualties. Now the question is how to verify which story is accurate?
I would like to draw your attention to Andrew Stroehlein’s recent article, “Welcome to a world without foreign correspondents”, in which he says:
The other example of a crisis unfolding mostly not before our eyes is Sri Lanka, where over the past few months the situation in the north east has become incredibly desperate for some 150,000 civilians trapped in an ever-shrinking “safe zone” between their government that is shelling them and the cult-like LTTE rebels who shoot them if they try to escape. Today, as my colleague writes, “A mass slaughter of civilians will take place Tuesday at noon. And everyone knows it.” Once again, foreign correspondents are unable to cover the story, this time because the government is not allowing them in to the region.
• For other articles in our World Press Freedom Day series click here