Opening speech at Global Forum of Freedom of Expression

Check against delivery

Dear friends,

I’ll start with the Tank Man.

A photograph, a few seconds of a film clip, transmitted all over the world of a man in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square in June 1989 – 20 years ago.

The anonymous man, in a white shirt, dark trousers and carrying a small bag in his left hand, stands right in front of a column of Chinese Type 59 tanks. The tanks have halted. What now?

We do not know if the man spoke. But his courageous moves were in themselves a powerful act of expression. Then the tanks move, and he moves, and then another halt. And we are all deeply moved as well.

A very vivid image of these protests – the “4 June events” – in China, now 20 years ago. The Tank Man. The Unknown Rebel.

I have been told that one of the most widely reproduced versions of this photograph was taken by Jeff Widener of the Associated Press, from the sixth floor of the Beijing Hotel, about 800 metres from the scene, through a 400-millimetre lens. Other photographers, from Magnum Photos and Newsweek, as well as CNN and BBC film crews transmitted the same scene. An extremely powerful symbol at the end of the Cold War era.

The photo didn’t change the world. Or perhaps it did? It formed world opinion and continues to do so. We will remember it for the rest of our lives.

*****

Honoured participants, ladies and gentlemen,

Words can kill. And you can be killed by words.

Words can heal and words can reconcile.

“I fear the newspapers more than a hundred thousand bayonets,” Napoleon Bonaparte once said, according to an unknown source.

Last autumn we celebrated the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Universal Declaration establishes freedom of expression as a fundamental right.

Universal and fundamental.

All of us gathered here today know, however, that in reality, being universal and fundamental depends on the context.

Governments around the world are bound by universal standards. But the realities – should I say on the ground – can differ radically. That in itself is a convincing reason for addressing freedom of expression at international settings such as here in Oslo this week.

You know better than many others what freedom of expression really means, why it matters and how situations on the ground may differ. As human rights defenders and activists, many of you defend free speech in your own country or globally, every day, and all too many pay a high price in doing so.

You may live in a country affected by armed conflict, or in a country where democracy is falling apart, or in a country with widespread corruption.

You may have been put in prison or taken to court. You may have had to leave your home country.

You may have risked your own life. You may even have family members and loved ones who have paid the ultimate price.

Or you may live and work here in Norway where the debate boils down to the following question: How do we exercise this fundamental right as responsible citizens?

With the exception of incitement to hatred, there is no longer any legal or other kind of limitation to freedom of speech in my country. We appreciate the fact that no law, no paragraph, should limit free thinking and free speech.

Yet, as citizens in a pluralistic society, we all know that words, expressions, articles, statements, images, photos and even political cartoons matter – that what is plain speaking to some may cause turmoil to others.

No law can guide us through this landscape; only moral decisions by individuals, neighbours, friends, colleagues, editors and ministers can do so.

In recent months the debate on these issues has been intense. We have all learned from it. These discussions are useful reminders of why freedom of expression is such a cherished right that we must stand up for.

Because freedom of expression is a fundamental right that is essential for the realisation and protection of other fundamental rights and freedoms. Because freedom of expression is a cornerstone.

Because freedom of expression not only allows people to express themselves freely – it is also essential for fostering mutual understanding and tolerance, democratic processes, good governance and conflict resolution, as well as economic development. This is why Amartya Sen’s observation that there has never been a famine in a country with a free press and free elections is so often referred to.

Today, however, when we consider the world’s realities we see that restrictions on access to knowledge and information, which again limits freedom of expression, are keeping millions confined to the lower rungs of the economic ladder, and preventing them from developing the potential they were born with. Not being able to go to school, or to read books, or to buy newspapers, or to search the internet.

*****

In Europe in the 16th century, the Church banned books published by heretics and unauthorised editions of the Bible. Today, unauthorised editions of the Koran face similar restrictions in some countries. Censorship is taking a variety of new forms.

Seen in a global context – what are the main threats to freedom of expression today?

We face new challenges regarding internet censorship, surveillance and data mining.

We see new forms of authoritarianism that dictate certain opinions and forbid others.

We witness violence, imprisonment and harassment of journalists, writers and publishers.

We read about organised crime, impunity, wars and the many other such restrictions on access.

We learn of defamation suits and strict media laws.

And we see how the concentration of media ownership, for example through mergers and acquisitions, is also defining the context for opinion and expression.

The challenges you face are many, and I am sure that these challenges will be high up on your agenda during this week.

Dear friends,

In today’s globalised world we are often faced with the following dilemma.

We are more interdependent than ever – as states and governments, as organisations, groups and as individuals. We need more channels of contact, more discussions, more forums of dialogue than ever before in order to deal with both differences and commonalities.

We need to sit down around tables, with governments and groups representing values or interests that we do not share, and we need to express our thoughts. We need to take better advantage of established channels of communication, such as the many UN bodies.

And we need to develop new channels – many more channels, bridges, and new means that cut across old dividing lines, be they regional, cultural or ideological.

On the other hand, we have behind us almost a decade during which channels of communication have been limited rather than stretched. A decade when the powerful, dominant message was that you are “either with us or  against us”. A language of “us” against “them”. A black-and-white version of the globe.

I believe this made the world more dangerous. It was a world that gave more scope to prejudices and prejudgements.

A world where we were inclined to draw simplistic conclusions.

A world where there was less room for understanding what it takes to manage complexity, differences, and what it takes to grasp the interest and motivation that shape positions and actions taken by others.

A world where we did not really draw the full benefit of the universal human right of freedom of expression.

As I see it, the world today suffers from a serious deficit of dialogue and channels of communication. Or, if you like, it suffers from less than optimal use of freedom of expression.

The alternative to dialogue is monologue: one-way communication. It means limiting the opportunities for building bridges and reaching a minimum of common ground.

You need channels of communication to be able to listen.

This too is a factor for how we manage interdependence and freedom of expression. That is: when to talk – and when not to talk. When to walk away – and when to stay. When to confront your opponent – and when to engage in dialogue. These are all key questions in international politics.

*****

Last month I attended the Durban Review Conference in Geneva. You remember what was at stake there: the result of hard negotiations on a compromise text reflecting our common fight racism and discrimination. The “Durban II Conference”, eight years after the turbulent “Durban I”. Negotiations day and night summed up at a high-level conference.

As you know, the President of Iran decided to exercise his right to freedom of expression at that meeting, from the rostrum the United Nations. He did so in a manner that drew little support. He repeated messages that – in my view – stressed antagonisms and incited hatred.

While he spoke, representatives of many European states walked out. For my part, however, I chose to stay – in order to use my right to freedom of speech to contradict the President and tell him outright that he was spreading politics of fear and promoting an indiscriminate message of intolerance.

Of course, I respect those who opted to walk out. That is always an option. But I question the efficiency of such a response.

By declining to listen – do we weaken or do we strengthen the ones who speak? By walking out – do we add to the weight of our own messages or do we leave the other triumphant?

Even more serious was the decision by some states to withdraw their endorsement of the final text, at the very last minute. I regret that because European states got exactly what they had asked for in the final text.

The efforts it took to negotiate the Geneva declaration should be applauded as a sign of hope – a sign that global agreement is still achievable on such key values as freedom of expression. All references in the final text were well within the scope of what is already stipulated in international conventions. All the paragraphs were well within “the red lines”.

In short: the Durban Review Conference Outcome document reaffirms the importance of freedom of expression in the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. The document imposes no restriction on freedom of expression as defined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The text confirms that rules and regulations are there in order to protect individuals, not gods nor religions.

And all of this was agreed by consensus. Really a matter for celebration!

To me, however, the Durban Review Conference highlighted some of the dilemmas governments face in the balancing act of when to engage in dialogue and when not to do so.

*****

Let me share with you, briefly, at least five important principles in this regard.

First – dialogue does not mean giving up fundamental values and principles.

Dialogue is not acceptance – but a deliberate attempt to promote your own interests and values. The alternative is, as I said, all too often a monologue. Engaging in dialogue, on the other hand, signifies confidence in your own values and principles. And engaging in dialogue does not imply an obligation to agree. The option of walking out is always there.

Second – dialogue means seizing the middle ground.

It is easy to seize the extremes; those flanks are rapidly captured. This soon leads to a “with us or against us” stance.

Most people, however, shy away from the extremes. They search for solutions in the middle ground. Effective dialogue challenges the dominance of the extremes.

Third – and consequently – we have to support and create arenas for dialogue, both locally in our communities and internationally.

We have to deal with issues around a negotiation table, where differences can be explained and discussed. Dialogue through microphones is seldom successful.

At home, the essential community meeting places where people share their experiences, dreams and aspirations – from kindergartens through schools and universities, to various organisations and places of work, are key for dialogue and communication and the opportunity to search for common ground.

My fourth point on dialogue is this: it is important to include the excluded, both internationally – for example non-state actors – and at home. Groups without access to communication channels, to the media, groups that lack resources. Who are they? Freedom of expression – you can only be in favour of it – but we also need to focus on inclusiveness – how to assist everyone to have access to available channels of communication?

And fifth – it goes without saying – the key to dialogue is freedom of expression. Full stop. Not restrictions.

But it amounts to an act of responsibility. Speech and images can instigate hatred. And freedom of expression has to co-exist with other fundamental rights.

Again I want to stress that I believe we are witnessing a deficit of communication, dialogue and outreach in relation to the interdependence of our world today. We need to deepen exchanges with those who share our values and interests. And – when possible – we need to reach out across old and new dividing lines.

In 2006 – against the backdrop of the cartoon controversy – Indonesia and Norway initiated the Global Inter-Media Dialogue. We created an arena where representatives of international media could meet and discuss freedom of expression and tolerance.

Several cooperation projects were born – many with Norwegian seed money. Training programmes for journalists in Indonesia, Norway and several other countries on global journalism continue. The Ethical Journalism Initiative by the International Federation of Journalists was launched. The handbook on ethical journalism will now be translated into a number of languages and used worldwide.

Political cartoons, the principle of free expression and cultural sensitivities are actively discussed in different arenas, not least in the Middle East. These issues will also be discussed this week in Oslo. Recently, cartoonists met for discussions at the World Press Freedom Day in Doha, Qatar. Cartoons are also on the agenda in Oslo and at the cartoon gallery in Drøbak this week.

I welcome all these arenas. Openness and discussions matter – they make us wiser.

*****

Dear friends,

The Norwegian Government has defined freedom of expression a first priority in its human rights policy. In close consultation with international media institutions we have formed our strategy and action plan. Let me share some points.

First, we emphasise our support to independent media.

We focus on media in conflict areas and in countries where democracy is at risk. This includes security training for journalists in conflict areas and professionalising the standard of reporting on conflicts.

This is not easy. I need only mention Gaza, Sri Lanka, Sudan and Afghanistan as examples.

It is extremely worrying that governments shut out the media from conflict areas.

It is highly regrettable that more and more are following this pattern, concluding that the burden of shutting out the press is less than letting the press in and having to carry what they perceive as the burden of media reports. We should not accept this cynical state of affairs and we must keep pressing for free access.

Second, we will continue to support the organisations that assist writers in prison and in exile.

We have increased our support to ICORN, the International Cities of Refuge Network. Now there are guest writers in more than 20 European cities and in Mexico City. There will soon be ICORN member cities hosting persecuted writers in Africa, Asia and the Americas as well.

At the moment, there are 10 guest writers in Norwegian cities. I also greatly appreciate the way they are enhancing knowledge about different cultures in Norwegian society. They are enriching our debate, our insight and our understanding.

Third, the Norwegian Government will continue to support the strengthening of the mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression.

Last month, Norway was elected as a member of the Human Rights Council in Geneva. Freedom of expression will – doubtless – be one of the most important issues on the Council’s agenda in the coming years. Norway will speak out. It will be a tough task. We know that the composition of the Council may place us in minority on key issues. But that can not be an excuse for not engaging – for not mobilising new majorities for fundamental rights.

Today – as I speak – the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, Frank de la Rue Lewy, is presenting his first report to the Human Rights Council after taking office in August last year. He will focus on the right of access to information in situations of extreme poverty and on the safety and protection of media professionals working in conflict zones. He will need our support.

*****

Friends,

According to the Reporters without Borders’ Press Freedom Barometer, 22 journalists have been killed so far in 2009. Twenty two.

In 2008, however, 60 journalists were killed, and the figures in 2007 and 2006 were 87 and 85.

And 152 journalists and media assistants have been imprisoned so far this year, according to Press Freedom Barometer this morning.

The 22 journalists who were killed died at work in Afghanistan, Gaza, India, Iran, Iraq, Kenya, Madagascar, Pakistan, Philippines, Russia, Somalia, Sri Lanka and Venezuela.   

One of them was this year’s UNESCO World Press Freedom Prize winner, the Sri Lankan editor and journalist Lasantha Wickrematunga, who spoke out against the war in his articles, and was killed on 8 January.  

He had been expecting that something might happen to him. Three days after he was killed, an article written by him entitled “And then they came for me...” was published in his newspaper. It was reprinted in various newspapers internationally – as well as in the paper Journalisten here in Norway. Throughout his life, he was inspired by the words of the German theologian Martin Niemoller:

“First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for me
And there was no one left to speak out for me.”

Someone has to speak out. Someone has to take the risks. Many of you take great personal risks and are confronted with serious restrictions on your freedom of expression in your daily work.

Nevertheless, you continue to fight and to write, despite formidable obstacles. You continue to exercise your right to freedom of speech.

Please keep on reporting, writing, witnessing and commenting, with your pens, your computers, your microphones, your tapes and your cameras.

I hope you have a great week in Oslo, and I wish you very success in your important and responsible work. I have the honour to officially open the Global Forum on Freedom of Expression.