Fast forward to March of 2024 when I led an International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) delegation to the United Nations in Geneva.
Among other engagements, we attended a meeting, convened by the UN’s Greek ambassador, Ioannis Ghikas. Representatives of seven other countries joined us to discuss how the UN might be persuaded to adopt a convention specifically committing countries to protect the safety and independence of journalists. The IFJ has campaigned for such a convention since 2019, when Carmen Draghici, professor of law at City University in London, drafted a text. This draws together all existing international protections for journalists – among them Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (freedom of expression), UN Security Council Resolution 1738 ( journalists engaged on dangerous missions), and the Geneva Convention of 1949 (obligation to protect citizens during armed conflicts). It also proposes a Committee on the Safety of Journalists, comprised of independent experts and modelled on the Committee Against Torture’s provisions. Such a body would be mandated to hear complaints and issue reasoned decisions, thereby making legal remedies quicker and more accessible.
In my naivety, I imagined that making our case would be easy – particularly against the shocking backdrop of journalists’ deaths in Gaza. What we actually faced from a roomful of diplomats was the kind of grilling one usually expects to see journalists deploy when interviewing politicians.
Fortunately, I was accompanied by IFJ treasurer, Jim Boumelha, as well as Professor Draghici herself.
“My government believes that journalists would be better served by the enforcement of current laws, not the adoption of new ones,” was the first parry. Draghici countered with the point that, although protections did exist, dispersal in a raft of general provisions made them hard to enforce when they were violated.
“Current law fails to acknowledge that journalists face greater risks when compared to other civilians,” she said. “There is a strategic advantage to be gained from targeting the media – as belligerents try to win the war of images. Those who wish to prevent the dissemination of information and international scrutiny deliberately target journalists.”
We also argued that news cycles and reporting technology had revolutionised the work of combat journalists. Today’s requirement for television pictures demands that reporters are far closer to the action – with a concomitant increase in risk. Online targeting and social media pile-ons were an even more prevalent issue than physical attack, we pointed out.
The most probing of the ambassadors present also turned out to be among the most supportive. Before our interrogation was done, however, he revealed that his attitude was less determined by the quality of our answers than by the lobbying by an IFJ affiliate in the country he serves.
That admission provided an insight into how such a convention might be achieved. Concerned individuals make representations to their elected representatives, who in turn lobby ministers. Ministers direct their diplomats, who are empowered to reach international agreements. Rarely have I seen those dots so clearly joined.
It might take several years, but our campaign to bring states on board is gaining momentum.
On my way home from Switzerland, I wondered how long it would take to persuade sufficient governments to ratify a convention As I did, I realised what should have struck me on my way home from celebrating Dom Phillips. Highlighting the issue of journalists’ safety, wherever we speak up, wins us allies. Increasing the visibility of the problem, wherever we do so, has the capacity, in itself, to improve conditions for us all. We should all be speaking up.
Tim Dawson is deputy general secretary of the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ).