Communication, Peace and International Law

9 Communication, Peace, and International Law HOWARD FREDERICK The entirety of Frederick's chapter is, in a sense, an answer to the various problems raised by his coauthors. This chapter shows us that there exists, on the books , so to speak, a vast body of international law relating communication to peace, in both its negative and positive aspects. Most of this international law on communication, culture and peace was elaborated at the United Nations, which is all the more reason why this international body should return to its original mission of promoting peace for all peoples. From Frederick's overview of the basic principles of global communication law, one thing is clear: communication media may not be used to promote war. On the surface, this assertion seems disarmingly simple, since it is evident that war propaganda played an essential role in the Persian Gulf confrontation. But international law is not like national law. Even if states have ratified or signed the conventions, declarations, and resolutions making up this body of international Jaw-which is often not the case-there is, in Frederick's words, "no global enforcer." Nonetheless, if Western civilization is truly at an impasse, as suggested by several of the authors in this book, the new emerging paradigms of governance can make use of the inherent idealism in this body of Jaw. Opponents of racism and sexism may be surprised, for example, to learn of the existence of specific conventions and declarations outlawing racism in the media and stereotyping of women that leads to discrimination. Although the present conjuncture is not favorable to their interests, the countries of the south may take some small measure of comfort in the fact that information sovereignty is promoted in international communication law. Many of his coauthors emphasize that Western culture has suffered tremendously from individualism and competition, which are, in turn, reflected in our mass communication processes. Frederick's support for the rights of peoples suggests that this notion of international law may help reestablish the sense of community that has been lost in modern societies. Support for this principle may also lead to a much-needed democratization of international organizations. Lest we forget, the United Nations's constitution begins with "We the people .. .. " 216 I I iI '' Communication, Peace, and International Law 217 Information is the oxygen of the modern age . Breezes of electronic beams flow through the Iron Curtain as i.f it were lace. Trying to control the flow of information is a hopeless desperate cause. The Goliath of totalitarian control will rapidly be brought down by the David of the microchip. Ronald Reagan Between the strong and the weak it is freedom which oppresses and law which liberates. Jean Baptiste Lacordaire Introduction For centuries, communication has played a powerful role in exacerbating tensions among nations. From the Peloponnesian war to the Nicaraguan war, nations have used communication channels to manipulate domestic public opinion and to disinform opposing populations (Frederick, 1993, chap. 2). Mass communication media also have the potential to bring about peace, build confidence among nations and strengthen international understanding. In the last 45 years, the world has witnessed an increased role for the media in international relations, an intensification of ideological struggle, and a tremendous explosion of global information technologies. These facts challenge the international law of communication and information to keep apace. Ronald Reagan's statement (quoted above) is typical of the cavalier attitude that many Americans have about the role of communication and information in international relations. Beginning after World War II, the United States and its allies have pressed a global campaign to guarantee the free flow of information (Blanchard, 1986). But by the end of the 20th century, as former Finnish President Kekkonen said, The flow of information between states-not least the material pumped out by television-is to a very great extent a one-way unbalanced traffic, and in no way possesses the depth and range which the principle of freedom of speech requires. (quoted in Stover, 1984, p. 31) How can we even the playing field between the info-powerful and the info-weak? In a world of increasing disparities between the rich and 218 Communication and Culture in War and Peace poor, Lacordaire's approach is attracting increasing support. Vulnerable countries are calling on international communication and information law to protect their interests. Dominant countries are resisting international law because the unrestricted free flow of information and communication benefits them in profit and influence. Fortunately, the founding of the United Nations and the subsequent growth in international law has led to a great enrichment and codification of international communication and information law. Historical Development Nations have respected the international law of communication and information for more than a century. 1 In fact, we can say that this is one of the oldest bodies of continuously respected international law in the world. So it is no surprise that some of the oldest specialized agencies of the United Nations deal primarily with communication and information: the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), founded in 1865; the Universal Postal Union (UPU), 1874; and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), 1883. The reason for this is that by the second half of the 19th century, information flows had already become a factor in international relations. National political leaders found themselves needing to persuade their own population as well as their opponents. Late-19th-century battles for international public opinion led to regulatory approaches through the law of neutrality. The 1907 Convention Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons (U.S. = SRE) included several provisions limiting or controlling propaganda activities (Bowman & Harris, 1984, T37). For example, article 3 of this convention forbade belligerents from establishing a telegraph station on the territory of neutral countries or using an existing station on neutral territory for military purposes. Article 9 required any restrictions or prohibitions taken by a neutral power to be applied uniformly to both belligerents. Of course, World War I and the Russian Revolution ideologized international relations in general and gave a powerful role to the media of international political communication. The League of Nations dealt with this development very early on. Meeting for the first time just six days after the Treaty of Versailles came into force, league delegates Communication, Peace, and International Law 219 wanted to break with the past by replacing power politics and secret diplomacy with international cooperation, collective security and open diplomacy. League delegates envisioned a new role for the press. In a 1925 resolution titled the Collaboration of the Press in the Organization of Peace, the league stated, "The Press constitutes the most effective means of guiding public opinion towards moral disarmament, which is a concomitant condition of material disarmament" (N ordenstreng, Gonzales Manet, & Kleinwachter, 1986, p. 105). Throughout the history of international relations, every time a new innovation in communication technology appears, sooner or later international law arises to regulate it. Gutenberg's invention of the printing press led Milton to call for a "right to freedom of expression." Morse's discovery of the telegraph led to the creation of the International Telegraph Convention. The development of wireless radio led to the International Radio Telegraph Convention. The great radio propaganda wars of the 1930s led to the famous International Convention Concerning the Use of Broadcasting in the Cause of Peace (U.S.= NS), the first multilateral effort to regulate peacetime propaganda (Bowman & Harris, 1984, T158; Nordenstreng et al., 1986, pp. 106-108; Ploman, 1982, p. 169). Although this convention was ignored during World War II, this binding international treaty still has more than two dozen adherents. Definitions International law traditionally was defined as the body of rules governing relations between sovereign states (meaning "national governments"). In the past, the subjects of international law were states, which in turn applied that law to the so-called objects of international law, namely citizens (natural persons) and to private firms (now considered juridical persons). But in the present age, other international actors have challenged the supremacy of the state. International organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and private firms can now be the subjects of international law. The most significant change, however, is the increasing role of individuals in international law. The 1945 United Nations Charter acknowledges individual human beings as personalities in international law. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights outlines the 220 Communication and Culture in War and Peace rights and duties of individuals, and the 1966 Human Rights Covenants enshrine those rights in binding law. As the Nuremberg judges ruled concerning Nazi war criminals, "individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual state" (Kaufman, 1968, p. 15). Modern international law is concerned with such individual human rights, racial prejudice and gender discrimination. So the definition of international law now includes all the institutions and processes governing matters of international concern and the norms or rules they produce. This definition allows for the law-creating part played by international organizations, multinational corporations, political parties, pressure groups, liberation organizations, and individuals. Extending this definition to the subject of this chapter, international communication and information law comprises those legal institutions, instruments and processes that govern communication among and between individuals, peoples, cultures, nations and technologies. Can international law be applied to private media firms and individual communicators? (see Downey, 1984, p. 342). States themselves are, of course, the subjects of international law. Thus state-controlled or -financed mass media (e.g., government broadcasting stations) are necessarily included here. But must a State restrain private citizens who, for example, might be broadcasting destabilizing propaganda to other countries? It is true that private media were traditionally not subjects of international law. But from Article 26 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (U.S. = S) (Bowman & Harris, 1984, T538), we can deduce that states today have general obligations in the sphere of international law that they cannot evade by pointing to domestic laws. Furthermore, the modern definition of international law definitively includes individuals as subjects. The manner in which international law is enforced on private media is a matter of a state's sovereign prerogative. The point is that these measures must be promulgated. Private media must comply with laws of the state in which they operate . If international law prohibits propaganda for war or racism, the state has an obligation to regulate the private media in this regard. In the history of international communication and information law, one startling incident stands out regarding the accountability of individual communicators. Nazi propagandist Julius Streicher, editor of the Communication, Peace, and International Law 221 anti-Semitic newspaper Der Sturmer was accused of crimes against humanity under the 1945 Charter of the International Military Tribunal (U.S. = SRE), the so-called Nuremberg Tribunal, which had the power to try and punish Axis soldiers who committed crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The judges interpreted crimes against humanity to include propaganda and incitement to genocide and determined that for more than 25 years Streicher had engaged in writing and preaching anti-Semitism and had called for the extermination of the Jewish people in 1938. Based on a content analysis of articles from Der Sturmer, the judges further determined that Streicher had aroused the German people to active persecution of the Jewish people. The International Military Tribunal found Streicher guilty and condemned him to death by hanging. Principles of International Law All international law is based on the seven fundamental principles specified in the 1945 United Nations Charter (Nordenstreng et al., 1986, pp. 111-112) and in the 1970 Declaration on Principles oflnternational Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (Nordenstreng et al., 1986, p. 155). Members of the United Nations are required to guide their actions in accordance with these principles and to compel all natural and juridical persons under their jurisdiction to act in agreement with them. We will return to these later when we summarize the fundamental principles of international communication and information law. Non-Use of Force. States may not threaten or use force against the territory or independence of another state or against the rights to self-determination, freedom, and independence of peoples. A war of aggression constitutes a crime against peace. States may not organize mercenary forces or civil strife in another states nor may they occupy another state through military force or recognize that occupation as legal. Peaceful Settlement of Disputes. States must settle their international disputes by peaceful means in a way that does not endanger international peace and security. States in dispute must seek negotiation, mediation, and settlement and, short of a resolution, must not aggravate the situation. 222 Communication and Culture in War and Peace Nonintervention. No state has the right to intervene directly or indirectly in the internal or external affairs of another state. This includes not only armed intervention but also any form of economic or political coercion against the political, economic, or cultural integrity of another state. Every state has the inalienable right to choose its own political, economic, social, and cultural system without outside interference. International Cooperation. Whatever their differences may be, states have the duty to cooperate with one another, to maintain peace and security, and to promote economic stability and progress. This means conducting international relations according to the principles of equality and nonintervention and promoting respect for and observance of human rights and elimination of racial discrimination and religious intolerance. Equal Rights and Self-Determination of Peoples. All peoples have the right freely to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social, and cultural development without external interference. States must promote friendly relations, end colonialism, and guarantee respect for and observance of human rights. States must refrain from any threat or use of force that deprives their own or any other people of self-determination, freedom, and independence. Sovereign Equality of States. The United Nations Charter is based on the sovereign equality of all states, notwithstanding differences of an economic, social, political, or other nature. This means that states are equal before the law and enjoy the full rights of sovereignty and territorial integrity. All states must respect the political, social, economic, and cultural systems of other states and live in peace with all states. Good Faith Obligations. States must fulfill in good faith their obligations under recognized international law. States must be aware of such obligations; commitments to the United Nations Charter always take precedence over any other international agreement. Sources of International Law At the international level, a complex and sometimes chaotic constituitive process has developed involving state elites, international ; Communication, Peace, and International Law 223 officials of public and private organizations, and even ordinary citizens who establish and maintain the basic structures for making key international decisions . As a result, a bewildering assortment of covenants, conventions, treaties, resolutions, declarations, protocols, and acts make up what we call international law. Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (Bowman & Harris, 1984, T181) has classified three primary sources of international Jaw (in order of precedence). 1. International Conventions. International conventions are called treaties in U .S. parlance and include "international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting States."(Bowman & Harris, 1984, T181). Conventional Jaw includes both multilateral and bilateral agreements. In formal terms, treaties bind only states signatories. But when a very large number of states adhere to a treaty or accept its terms without becoming signatories, a treaty becomes an independent source of international law. This includes such universally respected (but not universally ratified) instruments as the 1949 Geneva Conventions (U.S. = SRE) (Bowman & Harris, 1984, T238-241), the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (U.S. = SRE) (Bowman & Harris, 1984, T225; Nordenstreng et al., 1986, p. 119; Ploman, 1982, p. 29), and the 1969 Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties (U.S.= S) (Bowman & Harris, 1984, T538) . There is a continuum of universality among international conventions. At one pole are the constituent documents, especially charters and constitutions, of modern international intergovernmental organizations, to which most, if not all, states belong. Next come multilateral agreements laying down legal norms to which most or a large number of states adhere. Then there are multilateral treaties to which a small number of states, perhaps only the states in a particular region, adhere. Finally there are the bilateral agreements, which in fact make up the greatest number of binding international agreements. In international communication and information law, the bulk of agreements are bilateral. For the United States alone, they range from dozens of bilateral agreements on amateur radio reception to a score of agreements on U.S.-Mexican radio interference. 2. International Custom. A second primary source of international law is referred to as customary law, consisting of principles that are derived from actual behavior of states rather than from formal legislation. The 224 Communication and Culture in War and Peace International Court of Justice defines customary law as "a general practice accepted as law" (Bowman & Harris, 1984, T181). Custom is an outgrowth of state practice. These practices are reflected in such promulgations as official governmental statements and proclamations, international conferences, diplomatic exchanges, national court decisions, and national legislation. Customary law arises out of international norms, the lawfulness of which depends on the concrete behavior of states over a long period of time. In modern international relations , there are innumerable customary practices that have become international law. Customary law operates in such areas as sovereignty, diplomatic recognition, consent to sanctions, good faith obligations, freedom of the seas, and numerous other international responsibilities. The problem of showing that a particular practice is customary law arises primarily in ideological disputes and technological matters. 3. General Principles of International Law. The third primary source are the so-called general principles of international law. When international law emerged, "the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations" (Bowman & Harris, 1984, Tl 81) were the only norms that could be generalized from the national to the international level. But today there is less reliance on general principles, because many have already become customary Jaw. Although some principles have been widely recognized, such as pacta sunt servanda ("agreements are to be honored"), they provide a basis for judicial decisions only when no rules of customary law or conventional Jaw apply. These, then, are the three primary sources of international law, but there is another area of international-law-in-creation that merits our particular attention: the so-called secondary sources of international law (Bowman & Harris, 1984, Tl 81). They include the judicial decisions and teachings of legal scholars, decisions of the World Court and international tribunals, and publications of the International Law Commission of the United Nations. Another important secondary source are the innumerable declarations, resolutions, and recommendations by intergovernmental organizati ons . With the exception of Security Council resolutions and some International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) measures, they are as a rule not legally binding. But they do have a legal function. Some have led to binding conventions. For example, the 1963 Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and the 1 ' Communication, Peace, and International Law 225 Use of Outer Space (Ploman, 1982, p. 272) led 4 years later to the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and other Celestial Bodies (U.S.= SRE) (Bowman & Harris, 1984, T500; Nordenstreng et al. 1986, p. 149; Ploman, 1982, p . 268). Similarly, the nonbinding Universal Declaration of Human Rights led ultimately to the binding 1966 Human Rights Covenants. Enforcement of International Law The rights and duties of a state under international law are superior to any obligations and rights that state may have under domestic law. According to Articles 27 and 46 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties, when a state has agreed to the terms of a valid and binding treaty, it cannot excuse its nonadherence because the treaty was declared unconstitutional by its supreme court. States incorporate international legal standards into domestic law in a variety of ways. The route usually leads from signing a convention, to ratification, to implementation in domestic law, and finally to enforcement of those provisions (Jankovic, 1984, pp. 287-302; Sieghart, 1985, pp. 50-58). National legislation provides the legal basis for enforcing international law. Difficulties arise when some states neither ratify nor pass any enacting legislation to implement the conventions under discussion. Furthermore, even if a state does ratify a treaty, current international legal procedure allows a state to make reservations to a treaty, that is, to exclude or modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that state. Reservations to treaties must receive the consent of other signatories. In contrast, statements of interpretationderiving from the principle that contracting states should themselves interpret the convention that they conclude with another-do not require such consent (Jankovic, 1984, pp. 299-302). Unfortunately, the political behavior of states is the product of many variables. States can and do violate international law for political ends. Unlike in domestic law, in international law there is no "global enforcer" to punish violators. Governmental leaders sometimes uphold international law only when doing so will yield short-term gains. These commitments are often fragile and may be abandoned when they no longer seem to serve national interests. What is worse, with the important exception of the Optional Protocol to the 1966 International Covenant on II 226 Communication and Culture in War and Peace Civil and Human Rights, international law does not give individuals or organizations a means of directly enforcing its provisions. Yet before we despair of the effectiveness of international law, we must note that there are countless areas of international relations where international law is respected and observed. There are numerous international legal instruments that regulate areas as diverse as trade and finance, transportation, and diplomatic affairs, just to name a few. Within the field of global communication there is a great measure of respect and adherence. From coordination of international radio frequencies to prohibitions on transport of obscene publications, from guarantees on the privacy of diplomatic communication to enforcement of copyright provisions, from assignment of geostationary orbit positions to the universality of postal communication: Most fundamental principles of international communication and information law are widely recognized and honored throughout the world. International law is most effective when states have a common interest in its maintaining order. The law of diplomacy, for example, has been one of the most successful and durable fields of international law. For centuries, national leaders have depended on it for the security of their envoys. Similarly, the law of boundaries and territorial acquisition has enjoyed wide support among nations. For more than 300 years, the basic principles of the law of the seas have been widely accepted and enforced. Similarly, it is in the interests of all global media to ensure orderly, interference-free information flows. The International Court of Justice-known as the World Court-is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. States may submit disputes to the court, but the court does not automatically have jurisdiction over a dispute. The parties to the dispute must accept the jurisdiction of the court before the case can proceed. Many disputes cannot be resolved because one party refuses the jurisdiction of the court. Even when the parties do not accept World Court jurisdiction, there are many other avenues of dispute resolution that otherwise follow international law. These include the United Nations itself, regional organizations, diplomatic conferences, and multilateral commissions, where international law plays a great role, together with other factors, in resolving disputes. The problems of World Court jurisdiction and enforcement are clearly seen in the case of Nicaragua v. United States. During the early years of the Reagan presidency, the United States spent millions of dollars to arm the Nicaraguan Contras, ex-Somocista National Guards 1 Communication, Peace, and International Law 227 fighting to overthrow the Nicaraguan government from Honduras and Costa Rica. In addition, the United States itself mined Nicaragua's harbors in early 1984 and published a CIA manual for guerrilla warfare that encouraged acts contrary to the general principles of international law. In April 1984, the Nicaraguan government filed suit in the World Court charging that the United States had intervened and used military force. Nicaragua maintained that this aggression violated the United Nations Charter, the Charter of the Organization of American States as well as general and customary international law. The United States immediately announced that it would not accept the court's jurisdiction in Central America for two years. In 1984, the court accepted contentious (compulsory) jurisdiction that results in a decision that is binding on the parties and is theoretically enforceable, if necessary, through the UN Security Council. The court issued an interim ruling stating that the United States should immediately stop mining Nicaraguan harbors. It rejected the U.S. argument denying jurisdiction. In 1985 the United States announced that it would neither present a defense nor abide by the court's decision. In 1986 the court ruled that U.S. activities were not justified as selfdefense; that U.S. training, financing, and arming of the Contras as well as U.S. mining of Nicaraguan harbors were in violation of customary international law; and that the U.S. embargo on trade with Nicaragua was a treaty violation. It ordered the United States to cease all such activities immediately. The United States vetoed the UN Security Council's enforcement resolution. As Representative Weiss said, The Reagan Administration's decision to withdraw from the World Court's compulsory jurisdiction violated a solid policy of support for the court over the last four decades. This country was founded on a respect for domestic and international law. By continuing to reject the jurisdiction of the World Court, the administration has betrayed our American traditions and acted contrary to our own long-term interests. (quoted in Ginger, 1989b, pp. 223-226) Human Rights Law and Communication I will now survey those major international legal instruments that establish regulatory principles for international communication and information. 2 I begin with three of the four documents that make up the so-called International Bill of Human Rights. 3 228 Communication and Culture in War and Peace The first, written in the crucible of a post-Fascist Europe dominated by Western liberalism, is the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Its famous Article 19 declares: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers . (Nordenstreng et al., 1986, p. 123; Ploman, 1982, p. 12) The declaration does not guarantee absolute freedom of opinion or expression. Article 19's provisions, like all other human rights safeguarded by the declaration, are qualified by Article 29, which declares: 1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. 2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and general welfare in a democratic society. 3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. (Nordenstreng et al., 1986, p. 125; Ploman , 1982, p. 12) The other documents of the International Bill of Human Rights are the 1966 Human Rights Covenants, which make the principles set forth in the Universal Declaration legally binding. For all the emphasis the United States places on human rights, it is disappointing that it has not ratified any of these important instruments of international law. The 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (U.S . = S) restates the famous formulation of the Universal Declaration in its own Article 19: 1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. (Nordenstreng et al., 1986, p. 142; Ploman, 1982, p . 27) Here too the exercise of these rights is not absolute: I Communication, Peace, and International Law 229 3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) for respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals. We see that each of these documents presents a two-edged sword in regard to freedom of expression. Freedom brings with it both rights and duties. Here we see the essence of what had become the American and the former Soviet positions. One view would give states the right freely to disseminate information throughout the world without restrictions. The other would give states the right to stop communication threatening national security, public order or morality. That is why the State Department declared a reservation, should the covenant ever be ratified by Congress, "that States party to the Covenant should wherever possible refrain from imposing any restrictions or limitations on the exercise of the rights recognized and protected by the Covenant, even when such restrictions and limitations are permissible under the terms of the Covenant" ("Editorial," 1991, p. 6). It is important to note that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights goes beyond the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in one significant respect. While the Universal Declaration only prescribes, the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also proscribes; it actually prohibits certain content. Article 20 states unequivocally: 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by Jaw. 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by Jaw. (Bowman & Harris, 1984, T498; Nordenstreng et al., 1986, p. 142; Ploman, 1982, p. 21) Finally, there is the Optional Protocol to the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Human Rights (U.S.= NS), now ratified by more than 40 governments. This document is significant in that it allows individual citizens who have experienced violation of their human rights to petition directly to the United Nations Human Rights Commission for redress of grievances (this is called individual communication) (Bowman & Harris, 1984, T499; see also Ghandhi, 1986). Beyond the International Bill of Human Rights there are two other human rights documents that treat communication and information 230 Communication and Culture in War and Peace aspects of racism. The 1966 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (U.S. = S): condemn[s] all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one color or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred, discrimination in any form. It forbids certain information activities. It prohibits all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another color or ethnic origin, and also the provisions of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof; [And forbids] organizations, and also organized and all other propaganda activities, which promote and incite racial discrimination, and· shall recognize participation in such organizations or activities as an offense punishable by law. (Bowman & Harris, 1984, T490; Nordenstreng et al., 1986, p. 136; Ploman, 1982, p. 30) Similarly, the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (U.S. = NS) declares apartheid to be a crime against humanity and makes individuals as well as institutions and organizations criminally liable. It goes on to make it criminally illegal to: (a) Commit, participate in, directly incite or conspire in the commission of [the crime of apartheid]; (b) Directly abet, encourage or cooperate in the commission of the crime of apartheid. (Bowman & Harris, 1984, T638; Nordenstreng et al., 1986, p. 164) The one human rights instrument that the United States finally signed, ratified, and implemented in 1988 is the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (U.S. = SRE). The Genocide Convention prohibits certain communication activities. It makes punishable "direct and public incitement to commit genocide," defined as the "intent to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group" (Bowman & Harris, 1984, T225; Nordenstreng et al., 1986, p. 119; Ploman, 1982, p. 29; see also Ginger, 1989a). Communication, Peace, and International Law 231 Finally let us have a look at human right documents treating discrimination against women. The 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (U.S. = S) commits its signatories to take steps in all areas of life, including information and communication, to modify or abolish existing laws, regulations, customs and practices which constitute discrimination against women [toward] the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women; [and] to eliminate any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women. (Bowman & Harris, 1984, T769) Many declarations and resolutions apply human rights standards to communication and information. Picking up again with women's rights, the 1975 Mexico City Conference during International Women's Year makes explicit reference to communication in the 1975 Declaration of Mexico on the Equality of Women and Their Contribution to Development and Peace: All means of communication and information as well as all cultural media should regard as a high priority their responsibility for helping to remove the attitudinal and cultural factors that still inhibit the development of women and for projecting in positive terms the value to society of the assumption by women of changing and expanding roles (International Human Rights Instruments, 1983, p. 127). The Nairobi Forward-Looking Strategies for the Advancement of Women specifies that all existing impediments to the achievement by women of equality with men should be removed. To this end, efforts should be intensified at all levels to overcome prejudices [and] stereotyped thinking. (Ginger, 1989b, p. 246) Unlike prohibitions against racist and genocidal propaganda, international law does not unequivocally prohibit information content that stereotypes and discriminates against women. On the whole, international law does not impose a duty on governments to eliminate sexist propaganda. 232 Communication and Culture in War and Peace Security, Peace, and Communication We have already seen that human rights treaties forbid war propaganda and racial hatred. But many other documents on security and disarmament include provisions addressing the content of communication. In the 194 7 declaration on Measures to be Taken Against Propaganda and Inciters of a New War, the General Assembly: condemns all forms of propaganda, in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke, or encourage any threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression. (Nordenstreng et al., 1986, p. 113; Ploman, 1982, p. 47) The 1970 Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security prohibits states from "any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity" and "organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil strife" against another state (Ploman, 1982, p. 48). The 1978 Final Document of the Tenth Special Session of the General Assembly on Disarmament encourages states to ensure a better flow of information with regard to the various aspects of disarmament, to avoid dissemination of false and tendentious information concerning armaments, and to concentrate on the danger of escalation of the armaments race and on the need for general and complete disarmament under effective international control. (Nordenstreng et al., 1986, p . 179; Ploman, 1982, p. 49) The 1981 Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States details the relationship of communication and information activities to national security. Noninterference means the following: The right of States and peoples to have free access to information and to develop fully, without interference, their system of information and mass media and to use their information media in order to promote their political, social, economic and cultural interests and aspirations . ... The duty of a State to refrain from the promotion, encouragement or support, direct or indirect, of rebellious or secessionist activities within other States . . .. Communication, Peace, and International Law 233 The duty of a State to abstain from any defamatory campaign, vilification or hostile propaganda for the purpose of intervening or interfering in the internal affairs of other States. (Nordenstreng et al., 1986, pp. 187- 188) The 1983 Declaration on the Condemnation ofNuclear War specifically condemns the formulation, propounding, dissemination and propaganda of political and military doctrines and concepts intended to provide "legitimacy" for the first use of nuclear weapons and in general to justify the "admissibility" of unleashing nuclear war. (Nordenstreng et al., 1986, p. 193) Complementing these instruments on security and disarmament is international law treating peace and international understanding. Best illustrative of this category are the many declarations and resolutions that call on states to encourage media to work in the service of peace, international understanding, and confidence-building among the peoples of the world. The 1965 Declaration on the Promotion Among Youth of the Ideals of Peace, Mutual Respect and Understanding Between Peoples proclaims, "All means of education ... instruction and information intended for the young should foster among them the ideals of peace, humanity, liberty and international solidarity" (Nordenstreng et al., 1986, p. 134; Ploman, 1982, p. 52). The 1978 Declaration on the Preparation of Societies for Life in Peace "recognize[s] the essential role of ... the mass media ... in promoting the cause of peace and understanding among nations," declares that states have the duty to "refrain from propaganda for wars of aggression," and calls on states to ensure that "media information activities incorporate contents compatible with the task of the preparation for life in peace of entire societies and, in particular, the young generations" (Nordenstreng et al., 1986, p. 181; Ploman, 1982, p. 54). The 1984 Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace "declares that the preservation of the right of peoples to peace and the promotion of its implementation constitute a fundamental obligation of each State" . (Nordenstreng et al., 1986, p. 194). UNESCO's 1978 Mass Media Declaration, officially known as the Declaration on the Fundamental Principles Concerning the Contribution of the Mass Media to Strengthening Peace and International Understanding, to the Promotion of Human Rights and to Countering I I 1 I I I I 234 Communication and Culture in War and Peace Racialism, Apartheid and Incitement to War emphasizes the positive roles that mass media channels should play: Mass media have an important contribution to make in the strengthening of peace and international understanding and in countering racialism, apartheid and incitement to war [and in] elirninat[ing] ignorance and misunderstanding between peoples, mak[ing] nationals of a country sensitive to the needs and desires of others, [and] ensur[ing] the respect of the rights and dignity of all nations . .. . The mass media contribute effectively to the strengthening of peace and international understanding, to the promotion of human rights , and to the establishment of a more just and equitable international economic order. (Nordenstreng et al., 1986, pp. 227-228; Ploman, 1982, p. 172) Outside the General Assembly UN specialized agencies and other intergovernmental organizations have contributed a great deal to international communication and information law. The most active has been UNESCO. Although the C in UNESCO stands for culture, it could easily also stand for communication. For decades UNESCO has fought to improve communication systems around the world. Indeed, many of the underlying premises of the Constitution of UNESCO (U.S . = withdrawn) are based on a communication analysis of peace and war. In the constitution's preamble we read: [S]ince wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed; [l]gnorance of each other 's ways and lives has been a common cause, throughout the history of mankind, of that suspicion and mistrust between the peoples of the world through which their differences have all too ofti-n broken into war. .. . States Parties .. . are agreed and determined to develop and to increase the means of communication between their peoples and to employ these means for the purposes of mutual understanding and a truer and more perfect knowledge of each other's lives. UNESCO's fundamental purposes and functions include to: collaborate in the work of advancing the mutual knowledge and understanding of peoples, through all means of mass communication and to that Communication, Peace, and International Law 235 end recommend such international agreements as may be necessary to promote the free flow of ideas by word and image. (Bowman & Harris, 1984, T184; Nordenstreng et al., 1986, p. 211; Ploman, 1982, p. 71) Let us look at how UNESCO has dealt with communication and information issues in relation to peace and human rights. The 1974 statement on UNESCO 's Contribution to Peace and Its Tasks With Respect to the Promotion of Human Rights and the Elimination of Colonialism and Racialism calls for strengthening the role of Member States to make wider use of the information media and organs for reaching the general public to intensify the struggle against racialism and apartheid and other violations human rights and fundamental freedoms ... [and] to inform the public on the abominable practices of racial segregation. (Ploman, 1982, p. 77) The 1978 Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice is very concrete about the role of the media: The mass media and those who control or serve them ... are urged ... to promote understanding, tolerance, and friendship among individuals and groups and to contribute to the eradication of racism, racial discrimination and racial prejudice, in particular by refraining from presenting a stereotyped, partial, unilateral or tendentious picture of individuals and of various human groups. (Nordenstreng et al., 1986, p. 230; Ploman, 1982, p. 79) Outside of the UN system there are numerous regional and transregional organizations and conferences that supplement the work of the United Nations and its specialized organizations. Some of these organizations have constitutions or other constituitive documents with general statements that have great relevance for communication and information issues . All have adopted resolutions or declaration that either deal with communication and information specifically or treat related topics, such as disarmament or human rights. The Non-Aligned Movement, made up of 99 nations and two independence movements, has no constitution, but the periodic summit meetings have treated communication and information extensively. A 1976 Political Declaration notes with concern the vast and ever growing gap between communication capacities in nonaligned countries and in the advanced countries, which is a legacy of their 236 Communication and Culture in War and Peace colonial past .... The emancipation and development of national information media is an integral part of the over-all struggle for political, economic and social independence. (Nordenstreng et al., 1986, p. 288; Ploman , 1982, p. 119) The 1979 Political Declaration recognizes that "non-aligned and other developing countries have made notable progress along the path of emancipation and development of national information media" and "considers that the building up of national information media and mass communication systems . . . are essential preconditions ... for a multidimensional flow of information" (Nordenstreng et al., 1986, p. 296; Ploman, 1982, p. 116). Another important international forum for information issues is the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), composed of 35 European countries, the United States, and Canada. Meeting first in Helsinki, Finland, in 1975, the Final Act of these Helsinki Accords has a huge section on communication and information. It calls on signatories to make it their aim to facilitate the freer and wider dissemination of information of all kinds ... and to improve the conditions under which journalists ... exercise their profession . (Nordenstreng et al., 1986, pp. 333-334; Ploman, 1982, p. 118). Periodic follow-up meetings of the Helsinki signatories have monitored compliance of the information section of "Basket Three," which deals with respect for human rights and the movement of people and information (Nordenstreng et al., 1986, p. 337). Turning to regional organizations, the 1950 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, ratified by all member states of the Council of Europe, asserts that Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and import information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. But this important document of the European Community provides a comprehensive list of limitations to free expression: The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, Communication, Peace, and International Law 237 in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others , for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. (Bowman & Harris, 1984, T256; Nordenstreng et al., 1986, p. 341). In the Americas, the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights (U.S. = S), to which 20 governments in the Western Hemisphere are parties, guarantees in Article 13 that: everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought and expression [which] shall not be subject to prior censorship but shall be subject to ... (a) respect for the rights or reputation of others; or (b) the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals .... Any propaganda for war and any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitute incitements to lawless violence or to any other similar illegal action against any person or group of persons on any grounds including those of race, color, religion, language, or national origin shall be considered as offenses punishable by law. In Article 14 these American countries pledge that: anyone injured by inaccurate or offensive statements or ideas disseminated to the public in general by a legally regulated medium of communication has the right to reply or make a correction using the same communications outlet, under such conditions as the law may establish. (Bowman & Harris, 1984, T547; Nordenstreng et al., 1986, p. 342; Ploman, 1982, p. 106) This right to reply is reminiscent of the 1952 Convention on the International Right of Correction (U.S. = NS) which requires news correspondents and agencies: To report facts without discrimination and in their proper context and thereby to promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, to further international understanding and cooperation and to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security.... In cases where a Contracting State contends that a news dispatch capable of injuring its relations with other States or its national prestige or dignity ... is false or distorted, it may submit its version of the facts ... to correct the news dispatch in question . (Bowman & Harris, 1984, T291; Nordenstreng et al., 1986, p. 127) 238 Communication and Culture in War and Peace In 1987, Burkina Faso became the 12th party (and the first in 20 years) to join the Right to Correction Convention. The other 11 adherents are Cuba, Cyprus, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Guatemala, Jamaica, Sierra Leone, Uruguay, and Yugoslavia. Basic Principles of International Communication and Information Law What fundamental principles about media practice and performance surface from this analysis of international communication and information law? Here I present basic principles in international communication and information law. Communication media may not be used for war and aggression. The universally respected principle that prohibits the threat or use of force by one state against another forbids not only wars of aggression but also propaganda for wars of aggression. This means that propaganda glorifying the threat or use of force in international relations is prohibited by law. States are forbidden from spreading warmongering content themselves, for example, through government-owned and -operated international radio stations. They are also obligated to stop any war propaganda emanating from their territory on the part of private groups. Communication media shall not be used to intervene in the internal affairs of another state. The principle of nonintervention forbids all forms of interference or attempted threats against a state or against its political, economic, and cultural elements. This includes organizing, assisting, fomenting, financing, inciting, or tolerating subversive information activities directed toward the overthrow of another state, or interfering in civil strife in another state. It also bans systemically undermining public support to disintegrate the opponent's inner cohesion, gradually putting its state leadership in a condition of uncertainly and discouragement, diminishing its ability to act under the pressure of a national public opinion undergoing a process of reorientation. This principle prohibits subversive foreign broadcasts that attempt to change another country's governing system or that try to foment discontent and incite unrest. All dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination is punishable by law. The informa- Communication, Peace, and International Law 239 tion activities of all organizations that are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one color or ethnic origin or that attempt to justify or promote racial hatred or discrimination in any form are prohibited. International law prohibits all dissemination of these ideas as well as all organizations that promote and incite racial discrimination. It is a crime against humanity directly to abet, encourage, or cooperate in the commission pf racial discrimination. The direct and public incitement to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group is punishable by international law. Incitement includes using the media to encourage another person to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. It also includes propaganda and incitement to commit murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhuman acts performed against any civilian population before or during war. States are obligated to modify the social and cultural practices, including information and communication activities, that are based on the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes and to eliminate any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women. States may be obliga,ted to change media practices that advocate discrimination against women. Media should play a positive role in educating and enlightening the public toward peace. Throughout international law, media are repeatedly called on to promote a better knowledge of the conditions of life and the organization of peace. Media activities should incorporate contents compatible with the task of the preparation for life in peace. The mass media must contribute effectively to the strengthening of peace and international understanding and to the promotion of human rights . People enjoy equal rights and self-determination in communication and information. All peoples have the right freely to pursue their chosen system of economic, social, and cultural development. This includes the right to develop local information and communication infrastructures without the interference of external parties, to establish communication policies for the benefit of the people, and to participate in international information relations without discrimination. 240 Communication and Culture in War and Peace States enjoy sovereign equality in communication and information infrastructures. Every state has an inalienable right to choose its political, social, economic, and cultural systems without interference in any form by another state. States enjoy the full rights of sovereignty and territorial integrity in the area of communication and information. From this we derive the principle of information sovereignty, which includes the right to a locally controlled communication infrastructure, the right to an indigenous communication policy, the right to participate as an equal in international information relations, the right to transmit nonbelligerent foreign propaganda, the right to conclude bilateral or multilateral agreements in the area of communication and information, and the obligation to respect the information sovereignty of other states. Every national communication system has juridical expression through an information authority, especially in its constitutional, penal, civil, press, copyright, post, and telecommunications laws. Disputes about communication and information must be settled peacefully. The principle that governments must settle their disputes by peaceful means applies to the processes of international communication and information. Many international communication activities require advance coordination and, if conflict arises, peaceful resolution through negotiation. This principle implies that conflicts such as unwanted direct satellite broadcasting must be settled by negotiation. If a nation is aggrieved in an area of international information relations, it may C!lll on the violating nation to settle the dispute in a way that does not endanger international peace and security. This duty also implies that states must refrain from and prevent hostile and subversive ideological campaigns. Communication and information demand international cooperation. Despite their differences, states have a built-in incentive to cooperate in the field of international communication. International broadcasters need to coordinate their frequencies to avoid interference . New technologies such as global computer networks and international satellite television cannot succeed technically without the willingness of states to work cooperatively toward mutually beneficial solutions. Future technologies cannot prosper without international cooperation in setting technical standards. Cooperation guarantees technical success and assures the sovereign equality of states. Communication, Peace, and International Law 241 Good faith obligations require states to uphold international commu nication and information law. States must fulfill in good faith their obligations under recognized international law. States must be aware of such obligations and obligations to the United Nations Charter and cannot refrain from upholding them by pointing to national law. This applies in all areas of international law, including international communication and information law. Certain kinds of international information content are prohibited. There is an absolute ban on war propaganda. In addition, there are prohibitions on communication content advocating hatred, acts of violence, or hostility among peoples and races . Media may not advocate colonialism, nor may they be used in propaganda against international treaties. This includes all communication activities that attempt to prohibit or impede the fulfillment of in-force treaty obligations among states. In addition, the circulation of obscene publications is forbidden under binding international law. The free and unrestricted flow of information is encouraged. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Although this right is often abused by powerful countries and transnational corporations, it is important to remember that this is one of the fundamental goals of international communication and information law. The Evolving Right to Communicate International law is constantly evolving. Two new concepts that have attracted considerable attention are the rights of peoples and the right to communicate. International law in its modern form deals with the rights of states (national governments) as well as with the rights of individuals. Another emerging concept is the rights of peoples, and this has sparked a debate about where the locus of rights lies. Two conflicting approaches have dominated this debate. According to one, largely Western, approach, only the rights of individuals could be seen as human rights. Rights vested in larger entities such as churches, trade 242 Communication and Culture in War and Peace unions, states, and corporations were desirable, but they could not be human rights. International law, in this view, did not support such rights as freedom of expression as collective rights. Individuals could exercise their human rights in association with other humans. But rights belonged to the individual. Another approach held that rights belonged collectively to society and not to individuals. Under this view the state was supreme and was the guarantor of rights and freedoms to individuals (Fisher, 1982, p. 24). While the first approach emphasized personal liberties such as freedom of expression, association, and travel, the second approach stressed freedoms such as the right to quality health care, employment, shelter, and education- rights and freedoms guaranteed to society as a whole. This approach was dominant in the former socialist countries of Eastern Europe. A third approach, representing a growing third world position, lies between the two dominant positions. The concept of peoples' rights has a long history and a dynamic present. As early as 1790, the French National Constituent Assembly made reference to both the rights of man [sic] and the rights of peoples. The term has appeared often in postWorld War II human rights instruments and UN resolutions. The United Nations Charter itself was adopted in the name of "We the Peoples" and it recognizes the self-determination of peoples. Both of the great 1966 covenants in their first articles assert, "All peoples have the right of self-determination." There are two fundamental differences between the concept of people and the individual. The crux of the difference lies in cultural differences in the role of the individual in society. In Africa, for example, as in many cultures around the world, a person is not an isolated individual but rather a member of a larger social group. This contrasts with the Western view of the individual wherein a person is perceived as having a unique identity and a group is merely a collection of individuals (Cathcart & Cathcart, 1988, p. 186). The other distinction is that a people is different from the state, which often cannot be counted on to protect the basic rights of peoples. Sohn (1982) summarizes the rights of peoples this way: One of the main characteristics of humanity is that human beings are social creatures. Consequently, most individuals belong to various units, groups, and communities; they are simultaneously members of such units as a family, religious community, social club, trade union, professional association, racial group, people, nation, and state. It is not surprising, therefore, Communication, Peace, and International Law 243 that international law not only recognizes inalienable rights of individuals, but also recognizes certain collective rights that are exercised jointly by individuals grouped into larger communities, including peoples and nations. (p. 48) Sohn (1982) details such peoples' rights as the right to self-determination, the right to development, and the right to peace. He also mentions the rights to obtaining food, to benefit from or share in the common heritage of humanity, to satisfy basic needs, to achieve disarmament, and to communicate (p. 48). The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights best illustrates how contemporary law now accepts the right of peoples (Bowman & Harris, 1984, T806; Nordenstreng et al., 1986, p. 344). With cultural differences that deemphasize individuality, this basic African human rights document treats peoples as much as it treats individuals . Kiwanuka (1988) summarizes: "The main attributes of peoplehood are .. . commonality of interests, group identity, distinctiveness and a territorial link" (pp. 87-88). Applying the concept of peoples' rights to communication, we find that groups such as political parties and trade unions generate and promote ideas independent of individuals or the state. Larger aggregates such as social communities and peoples are held together by communication networks, on which they rely to promote and develop their identities both within themselves and vis-a-vis others. As the MacBride commission of UNESCO stated, "Freedom of speech, of the press, of information and of assembly are vital for the realization of human rights. Extension of these communication freedoms to a broader individual and collective right to communicate is an evolving principle in the democratization process" (International Commission, 1980, p. 265). One of these evolving peoples' rights is the right to communicate (see especially Fisher, 1982, as well as Anawalt, 1984 ). As we have seen above, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes the freedom to "seek, receive and impart information." But the Universal Declaration does not guarantee the right to communicate. It includes a passive right simply to "receive and impart" information, while the right to communicate is a dedication to the interactive spirit of liberty and democracy. The most diverse segments of the population must have access to international communication channels. Toward the end of the 1970s, spurred on by the information debates in the Non-Aligned Movement and UNESCO, human rights advocates began to call for an active right to communicate for individuals and 244 Communication and Culture in War and Peace groups who had no access to the large transnational media channels. The father of the right to communicate is widely acknowledged to be the Frenchman d' Arey, who stated first in 1969: The time will come when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights will have to encompass a more extensive right than man's right to information . ... This is the right of man to communicate. The concept was buoyed especially by the MacBride commission, which ordered no less than seven separate studies on the right to communicate (see Cocca, 1980; d'Arcy, 1980; El-Oteifi, 1980; Fisher, 1980; Harms, 1980; Pastecka, 1980; Richstad, 1980; many are contained in Fisher & Harms, 1983). The MacBride commission's final report recommended the following: Communication needs in a democratic society should be met by the extension of specific rights such as the right to be informed, the right to inform, the right to privacy, the right to participate in public communication-all elements of a new concept, the right to communicate. (International Commission, p. 265) How should this new right be defined? One Canadian report described the essential components of the right to communicate as "the rights to hear and be heard, to inform and to be informed" (Canada, 1971 , p. 3). Hindley (1977) lists the following constituents of a general right to communicate: the rights to speak and be heard, to a reply and to make a reply, to listen, to see and to be seen, to express oneself in writing or in print, to express oneself in the form of art, and to be selective. Harms (1980) proposed the following language: Everyone has the right to communicate. The Components of this comprehensive human right include but are not limited to the fo llowing communication rights : - a right to assemble, a right to participate, and related association rights; -a right to inform, a right to be informed, and related information rights; -a right to privacy, a right to language and related cultural evolution rights. Within the world communication order, the achievement of a right to communicate requires that communication resources be available for the satisfaction of human communication needs. Communication, Peace, and International Law 245 Active participation in the communication process is the "core of the right to communicate." The right to communicate is partially protected by existing instruments, but according to a UNESCO (1982) consultation of experts, it is also essential that adequate channels of communication should exist, using all available and appropriate technology ; that individuals and groups who wish to use those channels should have fair and equitable access to them, and opportunities for participation in them, without discrimination of any kind; that such channels of communication should be available to those who wish to take part in public affairs, or to exercise any other of those of their human rights and fundamental freedoms protected by international law, including the right to health, education, assembly, and association, and to take part in cultural life, enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications, and of the freedom indispensable for scientific research and creative activity; that restriction on the exercise of the right to communicate should be strictly confined to those authorized by international law; that individuals and groups should be able to participate at all relevant levels and at all stages in communication, including the formulation, application, monitoring and review of communication policies . The right to communicate seems like a logical next step in the evolution of human rights. It is surprising, then, "that in the 1980s this concept has been roundly denounced by the United States press and government officials as radical and subversive" (Roach, 1988, p. 18). As Roach points out, the American position completely ignores the fact that the concept arose in the West and was elaborated by Americans, Canadians, and the French. A Vision What changes would American media- both domestic and foreignundergo if the United States obeyed international communication and information law (see National Lawyers Guild, 1989)? The answer is a vast list of modifications in media structure and content. Here are some points of departure that might spark further work. On the domestic level, media have long perpetuated oppression of African-Americans. Black activists early on cited international human rights law and focused on media injustice. Such personalities as·Patterson, 111 l 246 Communication and Culture in War and Peace DuBois, and Robeson cited the genocide convention as prohibiting intentionally racist propaganda in the private media. The 1968 Kerner Commission Report, a report by the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders appointed by President Lyndon Johnson, confirmed these charges when it faulted media coverage of the riots as well as media perpetuation of racial stereotypes. Were the United States truly in accordance with international law, minority coverage would be greatly increased. Instead of focusing on black youth crime, as was seen in the coverage of the Los Angeles rebellion of 1992, social and economic causes would be covered in more detail. Positive images would raise the self-esteem of young blacks . History books would redress the injustices done by historians who have ignored the contribution of Americans of color. On the positive side, prosocial obligations of the media would bring the principles of international law on racism into the curriculum and the workplace. Citizen initiatives and referenda would make the connection between international law and violations on the local level. This is also true for Native American peoples, who have seen the worst kind of media distortions of their history. Hollywood cinema perpetuated their image as savages whom Europeans had the obligation to civilize. The Native American as enemy made it easier to commit genocide on an entire people. Such movie roles might today be questioned under international law. One powerful tool is the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, recently ratified and enacted into national law by the United States (18 USC 1091-1093). Not many Americans realize that it now is illegal under U.S. law for any group or individual to "directly and publicly incite another" to violate the 1948 Genocide Convention. This means that citizens groups may now have the legal means to force the Department of Justice and the Federal Communications Communication to close down Ku Klux Klan cable, white supremacist radio, and any other communications channels calling for the destruction of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. Women too have suffered from the effects of the media. The 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women calls on governments to abolish existing customs and practices that constitute discrimination against women, to abandon practices based on the idea of the women's inferiority, and to eliminate any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women. For example, the Communication, Peace, and International Law 247 male-dominated media distorted the Equal Rights Campaign. Advertising portrays women in subordinate ways. But interestingly, while international law explicitly prohibits racist or genocidal propaganda, the language of international law on women is not so explicit, perhaps because it was written largely by men. Nevertheless, some countries have enacted legislation prohibiting negative portrayals of women. In Nicaragua, women may not appear in commercial advertisements. Norway prohibits commercial speech showing women in a demeaning or subordinate fashion. On the international level, U.S. -operated and -financed media would also be subject to changes if they were to obey international law. There would be no propounding of first strike nuclear philosophy. False reports would be subject to right to correction. Direct satellite broadcasts that flood third world countries with commercial programming would be a violation of cultural rights. Such programs as ABC's 14112-hour series Amerika, which presented a fictional account of a Soviet takeover of the United States, might also be questioned. The Voice of America's Radio Martf service directed at the Cuban people is a direct violation of the International Telecommunication Convention which reserves AM broadcasting for domestic uses only. Radio Martf also violates the 1970 Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security, which prohibits states from "any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity." The 1981 Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States prohibits any "defamatory campaign, vilification or hostile propaganda for the purpose of intervening or interfering in the internal affairs of other States." The same was true of CIA-financed Contra radio directed against Nicaragua. Indeed, Pentagon use of communication in low-intensity warfare violates international law. It seeks to isolate, divide and neutralize attentive publics who support revolutionary change. The purpose of low-intensity warfare is to undercut the insurgent movement, to destroy the hope of the people and to make them cease their struggle for a more just society. Communication channels are being used to disinform both the home population and the foreign population (see Frederick, 1987, 1989). Conclusion International communication and information law is one of the oldest bodies of continuously respected international law in the world today. 248 Communication and Culture in War and Peace This law establishes widely accepted norms for media practice and governs the daily communication and information relations among states around the globe. Were it not this way, there would be chaos in the airwaves, incomprehensibility over the telephone lines, and anarchy in the geostationary orbit. There is clearly a built-in incentive for states to cooperate . For the most part, nations respect and honor international communication and information law despite the fact that there is no enforcer. They do so because it yields short-term gains, for example, in avoiding radio interference with stations in neighboring countries. But when international media norms demand a more profound commitment, such as the prohibition on war propaganda, states may abandon international law when it no longer serves national interests. The United States has yet to ratify and enact the important conventions with media provisions, especially the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the American Convention on Human Rights; the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The Senate has rejected these and other human rights treaties on the grounds that they diminish basic rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution, violate the rights of U.S. states, promote world government, enhance Communist influence, subject citizens to trial abroad, threaten our form of government, infringe on domestic jurisdiction, and increase international entanglements (Kaufman & Whiteman, 1988). It is not surprising that the United States is seen as the chief laggard in international law because of its failure to ratify and enact international law (Korey, 1967). As we enter the 1990s, there is a growing realization that communication and information are central to human rights. Communication media do not merely defend human rights by reporting violations and victories. There is a growing perception that the right to communicate should be added to the Universal Declaration among the basic human rights cherished by all peoples. This new right transcends the right to receive information, as guaranteed in the Universal Declaration. Today, communication among nations must be a two-way process in which partners- both individual and collective-carry on a democratic and balanced dialogue and the mass media operate in the service of peace and international understanding. Communication, Pea ce, and International Law 249 There is a huge gap between international law and international practice. Modern national states have been more than willing to use their military, economic, and propaganda power than to abide by international law. Yet Lacordaire's view-that between the strong and the weak it is freedom that oppresses and law that liberates-is gaining greater support around the world. Just like their earthly counterparts, electronic highways require "rules of the road." Regulation is important and necessary for our highly congested communication thoroughfares. To carry this analogy one step further, rules prohibiting drunk drivers from our streets are not meant to limit freedom. They increase the freedom for the good drivers. In the same way, regulations against communication violating international norms are not meant to limit freedom to communicate. They are meant to strengthen the freedom for responsible communication. In our lifetimes, international law has grown immensely and is respected now more than ever. The evolutionary trend is apparent- and so is the work before us. Notes l. The instruments of international communication and information law cited in this chapter are italicized in the text at their first or primary reference. Information on U.S. adherence to a particular treaty is indicated by the following abbreviations: U.S.= SRE means that the United States has signed, ratifi ed, and entered the declaration into force; U.S.= NS means that the United States has not signed that particular instrument; U.S.= S means that the United States has signed that treaty but not ratified it. 2. Many of the instruments cited in this chapter reach far beyond the areas of our interest. I only make reference to the communication and information aspects of them. Space limitations prevent me from examining the context in which these laws and treaties were adopted and the relative importance of communication and information in them compared with other areas of treatment. 3. For purposes of this discussion I will not treat the fourth instrument, the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (U.S.= S) (Bowman & Harris, 1984, T497; Ploman, 1982, p. 21; Nordenstreng et al., p. 144), which deals tangentially with communication and information. Article 13 guarantees everyone the right to education, whereas Article 15 recognizes the right of everyone to take part in cultural life and to benefit from the "protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author." References Anawalt, H. C. (1984). The right to communicate. Denver Journal of International Law and Policy,13(2-3), 219-236. 250 Communication and Culture in War and Peace Blanchard, M . (I 986). Exporting the first amendment: The press-government crusade of 1945-1952. New York: Longman . Bowman, M. J., & Harris, D. J. (Compilers) . (I 984). Multilateral treaties: index and current status. London: Butterworths. Bowman, M. J., & Harris, D. J. (Compilers). (1988). Multilateral treaties: Fifth cumulative supplement. London: Butterworths. Canada. Department of Communications. Telecommission Directing Committee. (1971 ). Instant World. Ottawa: Information Canada. Cathcart, D., & Cathcart, R. (1988). Japanese social experience and concept of groups. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), lntercultural communication: A reader. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Cocca, A. A. (1980). The right to communicate: Some reflections on its legal foundation (International Commission for the Study of Communication Problems, Document No. 38,3). Paris: UNESCO. d' Arey, J. (1969, November). Direct broadcast satellites and the right to communicate. EBU Review, (118), 14-18. d' Arey, J. (1980). The right to communicate (International Commission for the Study of Communication Problems, Document No. 36). Paris: UNESCO. Downey, E. A. (1984). A historical survey of the international regulation of propaganda. In L. J. Anderson (Ed.), Regulation of transnational communications: Michigan yearbook of international legal studies, 1984 (pp. 341-360). New York: Clark Boardman. Editorial. (1991, December 7). Editor and Publisher, p. 6. El-Oteifi, G. (1980). Relation between the right to communicate and planning of communication (International Commission for the Study of Communication Problems, Document No. 39bis) . Paris : UNESCO. Fisher, D. (1980). The right to communicate: Towards a definition (International Commission for the Study of Communication Problems, Document No. 37,2). Paris: UNESCO. Fisher, D. (1982). The right to communicate: A status report. Paris: UNESCO. Fisher, D., & Harms, L. S. (1983) . The right to communicate: A new human right. Dublin: Boole. Frederick, H. H. (1987). Electronic penetration in low intensity warfare: The case of Nicaragua. In T. W. Walker (Ed.), Reagan versus the Sandinistas: The undeclared war on Nicaragua (pp. 123-142). Boulder, CO: Westview. Frederick, H. H. (1989). "Development communication" in low intensity warfare: Media strategies against democracy in Central America. In P.A. Bruck & M. Raboy, (Eds.), Communication: For and against democracy (pp. 19-35). Ottawa: Black Rose. Frederick, H. H. (1993). Global communications and international relations. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Ghandhi, P. R. (1986) . The human rights committee and the right of individual communication. British Year Book of International Law, 57, 201-251. Ginger, A. F. (1989a). The new U.S . criminal statute, the First Amendment, and the new international information order. The National Lawyers Guild Practitioner, 46(1), 16-27. Ginger, A. F. (Ed.). (1989b). Peace law almanac. Berkeley, CA: Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute. Communication, Peace, and International Law 251 Harms, L. S. (1980). The right to communicate: Concept (International Commission for the Study of Communication Problems, Document No. 37,1). Paris: UNESCO. Hindley, H. (1977). A right to communication? A Canadian approach. In L. S. Harms & J. Richstad (Eds .), Evolving perspectives on the right to communicate (pp. 119127). Honolulu: East-West Center. International Commission for the Study of Communication Problems. (1980). Many voices, one world. Paris: UNESCO. International human rights instruments of the United Nations: 1948-1982. (1983). Pleasantville, NY: UNIFO Publishers. Jankovic, B. M. (1984). Public international law. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Transnational. Kaufman, M. M. (1968). The individual's duty under the law of Nurnberg: The effect of knowledge onjusticiability. The National Lawyers Guild Practitioner, 27(1), 15-21. Kaufman, N. H. & Whiteman, D. (1988). Opposition to human rights treaties in the United States Senate. Human Rights Quarterly, 10(3), 309-337 . Kiwanuka, R. N. (1988). The meaning of "people" in the African charter on human and peoples' rights . American Journal of International Law, 82, 80-101. Korey, W. (1967). Human rights treaties: Why is the U.S. stalling? Foreign Affairs, 45(3), 414-424. National Lawyers Guild & Union for Democratic Communication (Ed.) . (1989) . Proceedings of the Symposium on Media Accountability Under International Law, June 14, 1989, Los Angeles. Berkeley, CA: National Lawyers Guild. Nordenstreng, K., Gonzales Manet, E., & Kleinwachter, W. (1986). New international information and communication order: A sourcebook. Prague: International Organization of Journalists. Pastecka, J. (1980). The right to communicate: A socialist approach (International Commission for the Study of Communication Problems, Document No. 39). Paris: UNESCO. Ploman, E. W. (Ed .). (1982). International law governing communications and information: A collection of basic documents. Westport, CT: Greenwood. Richstad, J. (1980). The right to communicate: Relationship with the mass media (International Commission for the Study of Communication Problems, Document No . 38,4) . Paris: UNESCO. Roach, C. (1988) . U.S . arguments on the right to communicate and people's rights. Media Development, 35(4), 18-21. Sieghart, P. (1985). The lawful rights of mankind: An introduction to the international legal code of human rights. New York: Oxford. Sohn, L. B. ( 1982). The new international law: Protection of the rights of individuals rather than states. American University Law Review, 32(1), 1-64. Stover, J. (1984). Information technology in the third world: Can I.T. lead to humane . national development? Boulder, CO: Westview. UNESCO. (1982) . Right to communicate: Legal aspects. A consultation, Bucharest, February 9-12, 1982. Paris: UNESCO. COMMUNICATION AND HUMAN VALUES SERIES EDITORS Robert A. White, Editor, The Centre of Interdisciplinary Studies in Communication, The Gregorian University, Rome, Italy Michael Traber, Associate Editor, World Association for Christian Communication, London, UK INTERNATIONAL EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Binod C. Agrawal, Development and Educational Communication, Space Applications Centre, Ahmedabad, India Luis Ramiro Beltran, Caracas, Venezuala S. T. Kwame Boafo, African Council on Communication Education, Na irobi, Kenya James W. Carey, University of Illinois, USA Marlene Cuthbert, University of Windsor, Canada William F. Fore, Yale Divinity School, USA George Gerbner, University of Pennsylvania, USA James D. Halloran, University of Leicester, UK Cees Hamel ink, Institute of Social Studies, The Hague , The Netherlands Neville D. Jayaweera, Stockholm, Sweden Emile G. McAnany, University of Texas, USA Walter J. Ong, St. Louis University, USA Breda Pavlic, Culture and Communication Sector, UNESCO, Paris Miquel de Moragas Spa, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain Anabelle Sreberny-Mohammadi, Centre for Mass Communication Research, University of Leicester, UK COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE IN WAR AND PEACE edited by Colleen Roach preface by Johan Galtung I ® SAGE Publications International Educational and Professional Publisher Newbury Park London New Delhi q I I I Copyright © 1993 by Sage Publications, Inc. Copyright© 1993 is retained for Chapter 6 by the author, Riane Eisler. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. For information address: SAGE Publications, Inc. 2455 Teller Road Newbury Park, California 91320 SAGE Publications Ltd. 6 Bonhill Street London EC2A 4PU United Kingdom SAGE Publications Ind ia Pvt. Ltd . M-32 Market Greater Kailasb I New Delhi 110 048 India Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Main entry under title: Communication and culture in war and peace / edited by Colleen Roach. p. cm.-(Communication and human values) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8039-5062-4 (cloth).-ISBN 0-8039-5063-2 (pbk.) 1. Communication and culture. 2. Mass media-Social aspects. 3. Peace . I. Roach, Colleen A. II. Series: Communication and human values (Newbury Park, Calif.) P91.C539 1993 302.2-dc20 92-35951 93 94 95 96 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 Sage Production Editor: Astrid Virding 3 2 1 To the memory of Archie Singham (1932-1991): ardent, impassioned, much missed struggler for Peace.