 |
|
Documents wait to be scanned, sorted, and archived in Guatemala.
In the first worldwide test of freedom of information, Guatemala was
one of the most responsive countries.
(AP)
|
The right to information is at the heart of CPJ's
advocacy for press freedom, so we naturally support legislation granting that
right, whether it is to journalists or ordinary citizens (or those in the
expanding area between). But laws purporting to uphold the people's right to
information are only as good as their implementation. Today, The Associated
Press published an in-depth look at freedom-of-information laws around the
world and the extent to which they are followed. During one week in January,
the AP submitted requests to 105 countries with right-to-know laws and the
European Union, the agency reported. Among its findings:
- Only 14 countries gave complete answers within
their own deadlines. Another 38 countries eventually came up with data or
answers to most of the AP's questions.
- Younger democracies were on average more responsive
than older ones. "Guatemala
confirmed the AP request in 72 hours, and sent all documents in 10 days. Turkey sent
spreadsheets and data within seven days. Mexico posted responses on the Web.
By comparison, Canada
asked for a 200-day extension. The FBI in the United States responded six months
late with a single sheet with four dates, two words and a large section
blanked," the AP reported.
- More than half of the countries did not disclose
any information, and three out of 10 did not even acknowledge the AP's request.
- Some countries adopted freedom-of-information laws
as a condition for financing or membership in international groups, and the AP
indicated this was little more than lip service. Noting that China changed its rules as a condition for
joining the World Trade Organization in 2001 and Pakistan for $1.4 billion in aid
from the International Monetary Fund in 2002, the AP said neither country
responded to its request.
Many of these findings weren't surprising to CPJ,
such as that China (one of the world's
worst jailers of journalists) and Pakistan
(where reporting the truth can risk a journalist's life) weren't forthcoming.
Nor were we surprised that African
governments were among the worst offenders or that the U.S. response
came with the speed of a
snail and was incomplete.
More interesting, perhaps, was the AP's description
of Mexico: "Mexico's
freedom of information law is often cited as a model. Requests can be
anonymous. All responses are made public. The system acknowledges the request
immediately, and full answers typically arrive within a month." At CPJ, we
don't frequently write about Mexico
with approval; 27 journalists have been killed there since 1992,
most with impunity, and attacks
on the press are a regular occurrence. Then again, the vast majority of
journalists killed in Mexico
were reporting not directly on government malfeasance but on drug trafficking
and related crime; the cartels, alas, don't support the people's right to information.
So information, while usually liberating, can also be
deadly. In its report, the AP highlighted the plight of an Indian man who said
his successful right-to-know request into suspected corruption led to an attack
by the local mayor, who allegedly killed the man's wife and permanently injured
his father. "India was
one of just 14 countries that replied to the AP's request in full and on
time," the AP reported, but added that dozens of people in India had been
attacked for using the law and at least 12 killed. It seems as if one not need
be a journalist of any stripe to be endangered by knowledge.
No comments:
Post a Comment