« An optimistic look at the ELN talks | Main | Where in Colombia does U.S. military aid go? »
September 18, 2006
"Journalistic terrorism?"
Álvaro Uribe committed a grave error three years ago when he told a military audience that some Colombian human-rights groups are "spokespeople for terrorism."
The word "terrorism" should not be used lightly. It refers to individuals or groups who deliberately kill - or conspire to kill - civilians for political reasons. States must use all legal means at their disposal to stop anybody who fits that description.
But states must also respect and protect those who do not. Critics and political adversaries, however relentless or unfair their arguments may seem to be, have a critical role to play in any democracy. Tarring them as "terrorists" threatens to become a pretext for eliminating that role.
Álvaro Uribe has deservedly faced strong criticism for his use of the "T" word to describe non-violent adversaries. Now Bolivia's Evo Morales deserves similar criticism.
A few days ago Morales, in Havana for the meeting of non-aligned nations, told an interviewer that Bolivia's media are a main obstacle to his proposed reforms because they practice "journalistic terrorism." AFP reports:
"The resistance comes from the media," Morales indicated, denouncing "a journalistic dictatorship, a journalistic terrorism" that seeks "to satanize this process of changes" and "to confuse the Bolivian people and the whole world."
This is not the first time that Morales has used this term, though it is the first time since he was inaugurated that he has used it to describe the entire media.
Morales is correct that much of Bolivia's mainstream media is tied to wealthy economic interests and political blocs that oppose his reforms, and that its reporting often favors his political adversaries. The president is free to criticize their biases, their accuracy and their credibility at every opportunity.
But to use the word "terrorism" is to move beyond politics. It carries an implicit threat of violence: a state's response to terrorism is very different from its response to legal political opposition. The Cochabamba daily Los Tiempos put it well in an editorial yesterday: "The President would do well to reflect on his inappropriate accusation, so that this does not imply a threat to the freedoms of expression and information, as in times of dictatorship."
Posted by isacson at September 18, 2006 5:11 PM
Comments
Of course, it's not just Colombia and Bolivia where the "T" word is used to discourage freedom of expression and repress civil liberties. Although the detainees at Guantanamo are not American citizens, they are human beings with the right to defend themselves against their accusers. As Noam Chomsky has said, "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." Uribe, Morales, and Bush should all ponder this truth.
Posted by: richtiger ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.ciponline.org/colombia/blog/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 18, 2006 6:14 PM
The "T" word is a derrogatory term used as a shortcut, in order to simplify the situation instead of focusing on the specifics and the real issues at hand.
Some of the people that have been called terrorists by the world leaders mentioned (and others, because even Hugo Chávez has used the word in a similar manner) may be engaging in criminal acts after all, but they should never be called "terrorists" so easily and carelessly. When no actual terrorist acts are clearly involved, the use of the word is simply out of place.
Uribe, Morales, Bush and many others shouldn't just ponder the truth richtiger mentioned (not just said by Chomsky, but also many other times throughout history ); they should act accordingly.
Posted by: jcg at September 18, 2006 8:00 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)