Watch List
Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Russia and Venezuela
Countries on the Watch List
Ethiopia
Zimbabwe
Nepal
Sri Lanka
Russia
Venezuela
Background
Created at the suggestion of Hugo Bütler, Chairman of the International Press Institute and editor-in-chief of the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, the Watch List acknowledges two of the greatest challenges faced by press freedom organisations. First, how do you anticipate the desire of governments to suppress the media and control the free flow of information and, second, how do you encourage those countries to turn back from their chosen path. Perhaps the central problem is that, while it is easy to identify countries that have no press freedom, it is less straightforward to identify countries in danger of becoming repressive. For this reason, it was difficult to foresee the ramifications of the failed land-reform referendum for the media in Zimbabwe or predict the reversals in the fortunes of the Sri Lankan army against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam (LTTE) which led to increased media censorship. Another interrelated problem is the sheer diversity of the countries where media violations occur. In order to meet these challenges, a new mechanism was needed; one that was flexible enough to include often disparate countries with wide-ranging media problems but consistent enough to enable IPI's secretariat to publicise the different types of violations by applying the same procedure.
Definition and Policy
The guiding principle behind the IPI Watch List is to open up a dialogue with countries before they slide into repression. IPI's central aim is to persuade governments that a lively and thriving media is essential to the success of their country. However, there is a general recognition that such an approach is not always possible. Therefore, countries may be included when a crisis occurs or where IPI's analysis identifies a particular problem.
Of particular importance is the question of where it is appropriate for IPI to direct its efforts? Although the IPI Watch List does not prevent the inclusion of a country where a terrorist group or other body is the major threat to the media, in general, the mechanism is applied against governments. This is because governments are often responsible for the media violations and they have the opportunity to introduce change.
Practice
When evaluating countries, IPI takes a multi-layered approach. First, IPI analyses countries using its yearly report on the media titled, "The IPI World Press Freedom Review". The study provides a comprehensive review of over 176 countries and territories around the world and often alerts the secretariat to countries where there are severe obstacles to press freedom. Second, the reports are combined with the assessments of IPI members who, due to their own experience, have a wealth of information on the state of the media. Once the overall assessment has been undertaken, the IPI secretariat will build up a detailed picture of the press freedom situation. IPI will then hold a series of internal meetings throughout the year to discuss whether certain countries should be placed on the IPI Watch List. Upon reaching a decision, the press freedom violations are reviewed and an initial report drafted. As part of the process, IPI will seek outside comment to ensure its view are correct. If there is broad agreement, IPI will take the nomination to the IPI Board at one of its twice-yearly board meetings. At the IPI Board meeting, a country report will be presented and an extensive discussion will take place among board members. Subsequently, the decision will be put to the vote and if approved by a majority the country will be placed on the IPI Watch List. A country's status will be evaluated at the IPI Board's twice-yearly meetings and it will either be removed from the list or retained for further monitoring. Critical to the success of the mechanism is media attention and support from the international community. The aim of the IPI Watch List is to force countries to make the necessary changes. In addition, the list is another means of maintaining vigilance and provides an indicator of where IPI can best devote its energies.
Common Misconceptions
While the message of the IPI Watch List is clear, there are a number of common misconceptions with regard to both selection and the relatively small number of countries on the list.
Why these countries?
The countries on the IPI Watch List were chosen with extreme care. They are countries where the IPI Board saw a distinct need to publicise the plight of the media. Indeed, on many occasions, a country was included because IPI believed international pressure might reverse the situation. Russia was a good example of this. IPI was quick to see that President Putin wished to neutralise the critical media in the country and acted accordingly.
What about other similar countries?
A fundamental misconception about the IPI Watch List is that the choice of a particular country warrants the inclusion of similar countries. The choice of a country is based on a range of different factors, including individual incidents, the political situation, the spread of IPI's membership in the country and an assessment of whether advocacy can succeed.
Does the list represent the very worst countries?
No, the IPI Watch List is not a list of the most repressive countries. Instead, the list contains countries that might halt their attacks on the media; countries which retain the essential elements of democracy but which have entered a repressive phase. The overriding aim of the IPI Watch List is to identify these countries before they turn away from democracy and become harder to influence.
Why not additional countries?
In order to ensure that the IPI Watch List achieves its goals and does not lose focus, only a small number of countries are kept on the list. If it were to increase substantially, it would be difficult to distinguish between the countries on the list and the other countries IPI reviews.