 Whose freedom is it anyway? That's a question we'll be looking at today because it is the 3rd of May, a day that is marked around the world as World Press Freedom Day. We'll look at the context in which the press exists and functions today in 2023 and who enjoys actually the freedom to report, the freedom to do journalism, the freedom to publish. And what are the consequences that journalists around the world face for the kind of work that they do? And why is it important to all of us that a free press, a pluralistic press exist and that questions be asked to those in a position of power? You're watching Daily Debrief on People's Dispatch as always coming to you from our studios here in New Delhi. I'm Siddharth Ani and besides Press Freedom Day, we'll also be talking today about important developments from the United States where the president has met with the leader of the Philippines. This links in very well with our conversation with Prashant of People's Dispatch about press freedom and democracy, of course. And we'll also talk about a largely unsuccessful or at least a breakthrough free meeting held or hosted by the United Nations in the Qatari capital of Doha that was meant to chart a path forward for the multi-pronged crises that Afghanistan faces today. Like I was saying, May the 3rd marks the anniversary of the window declaration of a free, independent and pluralistic press. This short and specific declaration was signed by African newspaper journalists in the early 90s and became a template for universal principles for press freedom and subsequently was the inspiration for similar statements by journalists and publishers in many other parts of the world including of course Central Asia, the Middle East or West Asia as well as Latin America. The day is now celebrated as World Press Freedom Day. And today the media landscape as a result of both neoliberal policies that also began to take hold at around the same time as well as the information technology revolution have drastically changed the landscape in which the media operates. Yet the core principles as well as the threats to press freedom remain the same. Journalists around the world are under attack not just from government persecution but perhaps more universally from big capital which has consolidated media ownership in the hands of the very few, the very rich and build monoliths instead of promoting plurality. We remember today all the independent journalists around the world who have been persecuted for speaking truth to power. And as on every other day when thoughts of democracy and a free press come to mind, we consider carefully the persecution specifically of Julian Assange, the publisher of WikiLeaks, hounded, persecuted and traumatized not by a dictator of an authoritarian state but by the United States of America and its allies. The same set of nations whose leaders tell the rest of the world what freedom is and prescribe even coerce the rest of us to follow a rules based order in which they make and break the rules as suits their convenience. To talk more on this day is Prashant of People's Dispatch. Prashant, obviously we can talk about a whole host of issues when it comes to press freedoms around the world. But by and large there are some common themes around the world whether they are self-proclaimed democratic countries or otherwise. How should we as normal people who are consuming this vast array of news and other kinds of content today available online, how we to look at press freedom in that context? So I think a lot of world press freedom day has become about lists and rankings and all this kind of which country is more freedom, which country is less freedom, which is in some sense is a very superficial way of looking at the issue. And I think we need to kind of sometimes go back and look at why we are celebrating this in the first place. This is the 30th anniversary of the announcement of world press freedom day in 1993 that it was officially announced. But this itself was a follow-up of what is called the Windhoek Declaration that came out in 1991 on the 3rd of May and I urge everyone to sort of go back. It's a very short document which kind of talks about where basically a group of African journalists gathered at a meeting and they talked about some of the issues facing press freedom. And if you look at some of the issues that were mentioned there is still very relevant today because it was not sort of very vague statements about democracy and freedom and all that. It was really concrete issues that deter journalists from practicing journalism. Now some of this of course is repressive laws, jailing up journalists by government, repression of journalists in various ways. But others also are about economic factors. For instance, the presence of monopolies, the kind of impact they have on journalism. The fact for instance that often economic reasons are why journalists are not able to do their work. It includes their own wages of course but also something like say the cost of newsprint. So how all of these actually were affecting journalism which seeks to speak truth to power which is ultimately the aim of all good journalism. For instance, the document continuously emphasizes on the role of say journalist unions which can actually present a strong face and protect journalists from any kind of repression, any kind of threats. That's been a very key aspect. The document specifies a lot about training for instance and the spirit of the document, the Vindhav declaration actually is a very cooperative understanding of journalism. Where journalists across the world kind of pool in their resources, work to help each other and sort of help to spread the news as opposed to this cutthroat industry we're seeing today. Where everyone who brings the story and there are like 10 TV channels pointing a camera at the same incident and all of them saying we're doing breaking news. Whereas there's nothing breaking or they're saying the exclusive news but there's nothing exclusive about it at all. So the media landscape has changed considerably in the years since that declaration. Of course the declaration also coming out maybe even a more idealistic time maybe. It's the end of a particular age in history, the beginning of what is called the neoliberal reforms in many parts of the world. Politicians, big corporates realizing the value of actually swallowing up large number of newspapers constructing these massive media monopolies which have changed. And this was also of course before social media brought with it its own challenges to journalism as well. So today the picture is way, way more complicated. But I think the key aspects still continue. The fact that we need to look at journalism as not some kind of idealistic thing which idealists practice in a vague slogans of democracy and all that. But as concrete work done by journalists who face concrete limitations and many of these limitations are very structural. And the question I think on world press freedom days how do we sort of transcend some of these structural restrictions that are there. The restrictions in terms of how the state influences media coverage not just directly to censorship or repression but also through a variety of instruments which create a consensus like Chomsky said which manufacture consent. And so all these are like very big challenges to sort of think about today. It's interesting to note that this is also been a time of resistance. There have been a lot of independent journalists who despite not getting a platform in what in corporate media have nonetheless continued to strive. We've been talking about Julian Assange next that's he's a very good example. But I think it's very important to sort of sit back and look at the journalism overall in today's context and kind of try to think through some of these issues. Assange you brought up and remains in these times I suppose the biggest example of or at least the most globally talked about example to whatever extent it is talked about that that persecution continues. And despite this some of these elements of understanding the news world as a team sort of effort team sport in that sense hasn't really translated and particularly in these you know mega media and corporations that have come up. So how do you look at what's happening with Assange and the direction in which the broader news media is headed today. Right I mean I think like you hinted at Assange is not talked about enough because if he were talked about enough this would universally anytime someone in the United States talks about democracy you know the first thing people should think about is Assange right. Anytime Joe Biden or you know any of the any of his ministers or you know any of those US cultural figures say that the US is a shining exemplar of democracy the question then should be what about Assange because what Julian Assange did is release information about war crimes about atrocities committed by the United States. He published those that information which is revealed by Chelsea Manning both of them suffered a lot of torment for that Assange continuing to remain in torment Assange in jail in the United Kingdom in Belmarsh prison on no charges by the way because they're still to determine if he can be extradited to the United States and if he is extradited there he's going to face a fresh trial almost everyone is assured that their trial is going to lead to him being declared guilty a journalist who's facing SPNR charges which is again a first. So all these are very you know and I think the reason Assange is being targeted so much is basically that he revealed the dirty underbelly so to speak of the United States. He exposed all the claims that the US has been using to push it's through its soft power pushing across the world making itself this kind of dream destination Assange showed that this is how the US military works it kills innocent people in Iraq this is how the US works in Afghanistan this is how the US diplomatic cables work interfering across the world he helped Edward Snowden escape who made his own revelations so for this crime for basically exposing the crimes of the United States that is Assange's crime right so and and doing his job exactly so I think what Assange showed in the one hand was the possibilities of journalism in today's age in a small operation can tap into the conscience of people who are unhappy with the system and have such a huge impact you don't need a newsroom with 800,000 journalists all you need is a small operation which is able to provide a particular technological the particular technological infrastructure to release information which can severely embarrass and you know we make people ask questions of those in power and I think this asymmetric journalism that he practiced is the reason he is in jail today and it's also a warning to those who might seek who might seek to do similar things because the bigger these empires grow the bigger the US Empire grows the bigger that you know their spread is their weaknesses are also start to get bigger right so there are possibilities that many others could follow his path so it is also an attempt to deter people from doing that the good news is that people haven't stopped it that this experience is actually inspired more people to sort of work in these areas the state the US state the vast cultural apparatus social media platforms try their best to sort of stop it but I think the underlying message is that such resistance continues thanks Prashant for talking to us this world press freedom day or maybe we should take a page out of the Avalali book and re-christen it world unprecedented press on freedom day alright thanks for joining us the head of government of the Philippines Ferdinand Marcos Junior has met with Joe Biden the leader of the free world and the president of the United States the two countries are of course firm friends and allies and the US is role in and support for right wing regimes in the Philippines is just one illustration of the hypocrisy of the West particularly when it comes to issues like we were discussing with Prashant just earlier of human rights and press freedoms and of course in the wider sense the idea of democracy itself Anish covers the region for people's dispatch and has been looking at what came out of that meeting between the two leaders Anish uncle Joe welcoming Ferdinand Marcos Junior a bit like an old family friend being you know reunited after after a long time and sort of following up on the meeting with the South Korean leader kind of shoring up their allies in in the region what were the highlights of the meeting between the US and the Philippines and what should we be looking at in terms of this friendship going forward yeah so it's good that you mentioned the the manner in which Marcos Junior was welcomed into the White House the very line that I should actually quote him verbatim at this point the very line that he used was welcome back to the White House we talked over the phone he talked on the way over it's been a while since you've been here and you've been here under Preston Regan with your father now this is like a very clear admission of how strong US relations were with the Marcos dictatorship in Philippines but somehow none of the the spin masters in the Biden administration thought it was not wise to actually mention that part during a very crucial visit where you're presenting yourself as champions of democracy at this point and so obviously yeah but that aside we have to also talk about the fact that this is very clearly a way to show up not only allies but also make a show of strength of sorts with its allies in the region in the Indo-Pacific with regards to China obviously the target is always China at this point we have seen this since January where there was Kitschida meeting Biden and then you had you very recently and now it's Marcos Junior and so in all three cases the substance of the meeting wasn't that much it was merely a show of strength what was achieved was something just just optics at this point and not really clear concrete commitments even though commitment were made but well US is at this point where it is even trying to deal with its own debt crisis and so it is not it is not a mere commitment that can be assured by the president it also needs to come with the Congress and the Congress is not agreeing to the same kind of conditions obviously we are looking at a different kind of but nevertheless this meeting has been presented as this very positive outcome between two allies and in each of these cases and Marcos Junior's visit is no different. It's also a world press freedom day Anish as you're no doubt aware we've talked about conditions faced by the press in the Philippines and by their own admission they are talking about how this is geopolitically a region that is the most volatile in the world which at this but the moment of time in which we live it's no small sort of statement to make with flashpoints all over so in both of these contexts and you mentioned of course how the US is positioning itself as the champion and the upholder of freedom and democracy just in all with all of that background Anish how do we understand the US's role in the region and and to to the extent or the extent to which all of these sort of optics are designed maybe to just give themselves a pep talk. Yeah it is more or less a pep talk at this point because if you look at the substance of what has been achieved with this meetings it's not really much they were you know they were actually just reinforcement of commitments that were made earlier in this case in case of Marcos Junior you had the EDCA sites we've talked about that the military the military bases or which the US refuses to call military bases that the Philippines is giving access to the United States and also obviously statements about you are standing with Philippines against China in the South China Sea so obviously these are similar statements that were made earlier it is nothing new at the same time you definitely have moments not only in the US but also the Philippines talking about you know a very clear danger of militarization in the region and this is something that we have seen across the board across the region where be it in Taiwan be it in South Korea in Japan in all of these cases there were moments that were calling out their administration's very reckless posturing when it comes to the tensions between China and US where they're trying to use provocations of different sort against China and using that as a leverage to gain whatever little benefits they can get from the United States and that is definitely going to be a big problem in the case of Philippines right now obviously there is a very clear silence on the state of not only press freedoms as we all as we all talk about press freedom today there is complete silence on that matter there is there has been complete silence on the recent killing of Percy Lapid and we saw that when Tamla Harris visited the Philippines and Palawan itself and she was actually asked about the state of press freedom in the country and she refused to make any kind of clear statement on that matters it shows that the US administration is not keen on actually you know promoting or advocating for democracy or you know civil liberties across the world it is only more more or less concerned about containing China and we also need to now talk about how Philippines continues to remain one of the most dangerous countries for civil society organizers where you know apart from certain countries in the Latin America Philippines continues to be the one the most deadliest place for any kind of not only environmental defenders but also land defenders and people who you know organize as trade unionists and so on in the country and this is you know just seen in simple numbers where you have dozens of killings extrajudicial and you know very random assassinations happening every year and there is literally no talk about that coming from the US administration on both sides neither the Republicans or the Democrats won't touch on that and so this is something that is very clearly sidelined and we did not see that kind of silence when it was because obviously that it took a very pragmatic position in geopolitically where it did not very overtly side with the United States but when it comes to markers you know the friendliness is paying off with the kind of you know whitewashing that the US administration is ready to do in this case all right thanks Anish for giving us all the latest on the unspinnable activities of uncle Joe Biden but also also kind of giving us a little more context particularly in in the light of what's been coming out of Beijing over the recent weeks and months which has been a lot more sort of constructive in the point of dialogue as well as resolving a lot of these regional conflicts in by involving regional players itself thanks. Two days of talks have ended in Doha involving around 25 countries and hosted by United Nations Secretary General Antonio Gutierrez the talks were of course aimed at finding some kind of common ground to help reach a resolution to the multiple crises that Afghanistan is facing at present unsurprisingly though from reports that are emanating from Doha there have been no major breakthroughs after these two days of discussions which included several neighboring countries including the likes of course India Pakistan and others not surprising perhaps because the de facto head of the government in Afghanistan which is the Taliban were not in fact invited to attend or participate in these talks mostly because there is significant opposition from many countries to in fact recognizing the Taliban as the government in power in Afghanistan to talk more on the subject Abdul joins us Abdul like I was just saying how successful can you even expect discussion like this to be if the powers that be on the ground that are in fact ruling Afghanistan as things stand at present are not even participating in the discussion at all. Well that is one point which was raised by the Taliban officials as well that this entire exercise is fruitless there is no meaning behind it if we are not invited of course but one should understand the dilemma in which the entire the meeting was held on one point there were objections to what Taliban's Taliban government de facto government in Afghanistan is doing is a way the women in particular and also about the failure of various countries across the globe to basically recognize the necessity of engaging with the authorities on the ground so there were different levels of contradictions and disagreements which basically the organizers in particular the UN were unable to resolve and that basically led to this particular situation in which the talks were held on the condition of Afghan economy on terrorism on the condition of women important issues of course given the fact that majority of the Afghans are facing unprecedented economic crisis almost 100% of the Afghan population is not able to meet their basic needs for various reasons of course one of the basic problem reason is the though the decades long war and uncertainty so so in that particular situation where there is a defect to administration there even that was not invited and it seems to be fair to the organizers there was no fault of theirs at least so this peculiar situation it seems we are unable to pinpoint who is responsible behind that but yeah that is the situation yeah so I guess next we can talk a bit about the UN DP United Nations Development Program report that has also come out detailing some of the specific aspects of the economic crisis that is currently on in Afghanistan it is of course nothing new in that sense of the we've talked about it often on this show as well and elsewhere on people's dispatch so so there seems to be an understanding of what is happening from an economic standpoint at least in Afghanistan and also what factors have led us to this point in that context was this did this meeting eventually boil down to what kind of a response the so-called international community will have to the situation in Afghanistan and and is it looking at those aspects more than actually a long-term more plan where which involves again people who are on the ground and actually running things no unfortunately no in fact the the the the very rigid stand which salivan has taken vis-a-vis the condition of women has provided an excuse to countries such as the United States and the European Union which are holding a substantial amount of Afghan fund which can can be very useful in tackling some of the economic aspects in the country so basically they have what we call the shot the themselves in arm and because of the rigid stand on women question and that there are no explanation if one looks try to understand why Taliban is doing this particular thing there is no rational explanation there were talks if we remember when the US was withdrawing and the Taliban was taking over there were talks of this being Taliban to zero different from what Taliban was in 1996 and in the first during the first his first rule and the spokesperson after spokesperson coming from Taliban claiming that we basically respect the women and respect their right to be in public domain we will do everything to make sure that they are allowed to get education they're allowed to participate in the workforce and so and so forth but none of those promises have materialized and it's seen in more ways than other that the this Taliban government is not any different from what the first Taliban government was and that basically provides an excuse to as I said before the for the countries which basically have an interest in withholding the Afghan funds and that basically creates a kind of status quo a crime a crime a kind of situation where even the organization such as UN which is willing to and pushing for more and more engagements with the Taliban government on ground is unable to convince in fact there are reports that UN is reviewing its own presence in Afghanistan because of the particular thing that the Taliban government has banned women from participating in UN activities as well so this rigidity is basically which is irrational unexplainable is basically providing basically generating the situation for as I said before the almost the entire country the almost 100 percent of Afghans today more than around 30 million Afghans are unable to meet their basic necessities and and it seems that there is no one which can do anything about it and and and unconscionable also the rigidity that the Taliban is bringing to the table at this point a quick reminder to our viewers of course that over 7 billion US dollars in Afghan Central Bank funds just in the United States have been frozen as European Union has also frozen assets assets that could well as Abdul was pointing out have been used to at least alleviate some of the material difficulties and humanitarian concerns that are facing vast majority of Afghans including millions and millions of women and children of course thanks Abdul for for that update today even though I mean there was not really much of an update as such but thanks for joining us so on this occasion of world press freedom day or press on freedom day depending on how you look at it we of course thank you all for your support and for following people's dispatch if if you haven't liked and subscribed please do so now we also as always invite you to head to our website peoplesdispatch.org give us a follow on social media platforms for updates and keep a track on all of the work we do you can also get in touch right into us with your comments your thoughts as well as your feedback on the shows that we do we'll be back with another episode of the daily debris from on the same time same place tomorrow until then stay safe thank you for watching goodbye