II: INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION OF FREE SPEECH

The international free speech and transnational communication laws in UN and other international agreements reflect Cold War power struggles, with the US advocating complete freedom of speech, while adversary governments such as the Soviet Union and Cuba wanted to retain the right to block US propaganda.(1) The international standards in regards to free flow of information have protected freedom of speech, even across national boundaries, and have consistently rejected the right of radio jamming or other ways of blocking the flow of information, with few exceptions. The international commitment to free flow of information and speech is reflected most prominently in the following documents:

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

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.(2)

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Article 19, Paragraph 2:

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this rights shall include 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.(3)

International Telecommunications Convention (revised 1967)
Chapter V, Article 48 regarding harmful radio interference:

303 1. All stations, whatever their purpose, must be established and operated in such a manner as not to cause harmful interference to the radio services or communications of other Members or Associate Members or of recognized private operating agencies, or of other duly authorized operating agencies which carry on radio service, and which operate in accordance with the provisions of the Radio Regulations.(4)

General Assembly resolution 424 (V) of December 14, 1950 in regards to radio jamming: (excerpt)
"Considering that the duly authorized radio operating agencies in some countries are deliberately interfering with the reception by the people of those countries of certain radio signals originating beyond their territories, and bearing in mind the discussion which took place in the Economic and Social Council and in the Sub-Commission on Freedom of Information and the Press on this subject,
Considering that peace among nations rests on the goodwill of all peoples and governments and that tolerance and understanding are prerequisites for establishing goodwill in the international field,
1. Adopts the declaration of the Economic and Social Council contained in its resolution 306 B (XI) of 9 August 1950 to the effect that this type of interference constitutes a violation of the accepted principles of freedom of information;
2. Condemns measures of this nature as a denial of the right of all persons to be fully informed concerning news, opinions and ideas regardless of frontiers;
3. Invites the governments of all Member States to refrain from such interference with the right of their peoples to freedom of information;
4. Invites all governments to refrain from broadcasts that would mean unfair attacks or slanders against other peoples anywhere and in so doing conform strictly to an ethical conduct in the interest of world peace by reporting facts truly and objectively.
5. Invites also Member States to give every possible facility so that their peoples may know objectively the activities of the United Nations in promoting peace and, in particular, to facilitate the reception and transmission of the United Nations Official broadcasts."(5)

While this resolution had no power except as a recommendation, and deals with government blocking of incoming broadcasts, it does reflect an international standard of nonjamming in regards to the accepted principles of freedom of information.-top-

III: SPEECH NOT PROTECTED BY INTERNATIONAL LAW

While international law protects the rights of free speech and is designed to promote the free flow of information, not all speech is protected. Speech that incites or infringes on other rights protected internationally is not protected by international law, as is articulated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, The International Convention on Racial Discrimination, and the Genocide Convention among others.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Article 19:

"1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this rights shall include 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.
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 for by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights and reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

Article 20:

"1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence shall be prohibited by law."(6)

The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Article 4:

"State Parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination and...
(a) Shall declare an offence punishable by law 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...
(b) Shall declare illegal and prohibit organizations, and also organized and all other propaganda activities, which promote and incite racial discrimination...
(c) Shall not permit public authorities or public institutions, national or local, to promote or incite racial discrimination."(7)

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Article 3 includes, as a punishable offense:

(d) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide(8)

UNESCO "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 Racialism, Apartheid and Incitement to War" (Mass Media Declaration, 1978):

Article I
The strengthening of peace and international understanding, the promotion of human rights and the countering of racialism, apartheid and incitement to war demand a free flow and a wider and better balanced dissemination of information. To this end, the mass media have a leading contribution to make. This contribution will be the more effective to the extent that the information reflects the different aspects of the subject dealt with.
Article II
1. The exercise of freedom of opinion, expression and information, recognized as an integral part of human rights and fundamental freedoms, is a vital factor in the strengthening of peace and international understanding.
2. Access by the public to information should be guaranteed by the diversity of the sources and means of information available to it, thus enabling each individual to check the accuracy of facts and to appraise events objectively. To this end, journalists must have freedom to report and the fullest possible facilities of access to information. Similarly, it is important that the mass media be responsive to concerns of peoples and individuals, thus promoting the participation of the public in the elaboration of information.(9)-top-

IV: IMPLICATIONS FOR INTERVENTION AND PEACEKEEPING

Radio Jamming
Given the international commitment to freedom of speech, the US was able to use international law as a justification for non-intervention in Rwandan. Although the US had the capabilities, and had used radio jamming before in military situations, it justified not jamming the broadcasts of the RTML and Radio Rwanda because of its commitment to freedom of speech, and because Rwanda was not an enemy government. However, as can be seen by the international conventions named above, the Rwandan government was broadcasting speech that violated international law, and was therefore not protected. Therefore, the freedom of speech argument in regards to Rwanda is problematic, and is a case that demonstrates the need, as Jamie Metzl has argued, for the reconsideration of a blanket nonjamming standard.(10)

The issue of state sovereignty in regards to transnational broadcasting has been discussed most in relation to Cold War politics. However, it is still a major issue if one state can interfere in another states domestic broadcasts, based on its interpretation of international law. While this may seem a dangerous can of worms to open - or, a slippery slope - it has been shown that there is a very strong trend toward freedom of information, and it would only be in extreme circumstances that the right of intervention would be allowed.

Members of the international community have a right, and a responsibility, to interfere with media broadcasting within a sovereign nation if it directly incites violence, hatred, or other human rights abuses, and is therefore not protected by international law. The issue of sovereignty is not relevant to these situations because within the concept of humanitarian intervention, state sovereignty is subordinated to the international responsibility of protecting human rights.(11)

The responsibilities of the international community in responding to human rights abuses are the subject of a debate much larger than the one reflected here, and the use of radio jamming is only a facet of this. However, perhaps radio jamming can be conceptualized, as Metzl puts it, as "the most benign form of humanitarian intervention".(12) In this way, it is a tool for the international community to use when planning a humanitarian intervention, and is appropriate in such cases where intervention is deemed appropriate.
In terms of the situation in Rwanda, there is a specific responsibility of states to do what is in their power to prevent genocide, especially to block broadcasts that are in flagrant violation of the Genocide Convention and other International Law.

Peace Broadcasting
While the international commitment to freedom of speech is something that must be circumvented (carefully, and in specific circumstances) to use radio jamming as a form of humanitarian intervention, it is very conducive to the use of transnational or external alternative broadcasting. International law protects the right of transnational broadcasting and free flow of information, and therefore the use of media as a reliable way to provide alternative information or counter propaganda outside of a sovereign nation. This has been a successful method in US and UN intervention and peace keeping operations, although it was not used in Rwanda.-top-

V: USES OF THE MEDIA

The media, especially radio broadcasting, has been used as an international tool of propaganda, warfare, and promotion of peace since its invention. In Nazi Germany the radio and other media was used to propagate Nazi ideology, and incitement to genocide through media was recognized at the Nuremberg War Trials. In Bosnia and Rwanda, the radio, and television in Yugoslavia, has been used to incite ethnic hatred and violence, and has been a lethal form of propaganda. Media was used as a propaganda measure by both sides in the Cold War, and can be seen especially in the use of Radio Free Europe, Voices of America, and Radio Martí in the case of Cuba. Both the Soviet Union and Cuba used radio jamming devices to block US anti-communist propaganda.(13)

In terms of psychological warfare, the US has used radio jamming in 1991 in the Persian Gulf, and in 1994 in Haiti, among others. However, the US has made a clear distinction between the use of radio jamming capabilities for military and for civilian use, and has not used it for non-military uses.(14)

The United Nations, NATO, the US, and some NGOs have used counter broadcasting in promoting peace, and offering alternative information. In Namibia, Cambodia, and eastern Slavonia UN radio stations and peace missions have broadcasted impartial news and information; In Bosnia, NATO troops ensured through force that the Serb radio/television stations stopped airing propaganda provoking anti-NATO sentiments and ethnic hatred, and instead ensured airtime of alternative views.(15)

The use of alternative broadcasting of reliable news and information, as well as dissident political opinion or challenges to propaganda, has been used successfully to challenge the monopoly of internal media, and to alleviate tensions in conflict situations.-top-

VI: THE INTERNET AND HUMAN RIGHTS

The Internet now plays an important role in promoting information and organizing around human rights. The Internet has provided a global forum to share information, news, and beliefs, and, as such, creates huge possibilities for how media can be used to organize, promote peace, and disseminate information in the future. Anyone with access to the Internet has access to information regarding their rights, the work of organizations outside of the country, and alternative news sources. The permeability of borders has increased dramatically with the instant global flow of information, as well as communication.
At the same time, the Internet is a medium that is not accessible to all, much less than the radio, and in that way cannot reach those who may benefit most from it. It depends on access to a computer, literacy, and some degree of computer literacy to get its message out. It can also play a large role in promoting propaganda, and in serving as a means of organizing for perpetrators of human rights abuses. Like the radio, it has great power, available to be harnessed indiscriminate of purpose, ideology, or goals.-top-

VII: CONCLUSION:

The relationship of media to human rights is both a positive and negative one. The power of the media has been harnessed, as was seen in the Rwanda Genocide, to promote hate and coordinate violence; this power has also been harnessed in the cause of peace and reconciliation. Because of the legacy of Cold war power struggles, the issue of international free speech and free flow of information has been a volatile and contested area, especially for the US in attempting to protect the right of free flow of information. While the importance of free speech and free flow of information is affirmed by the international community through many of the treaties, conventions, and resolutions presented here, there are also problems that must be addressed in the face of events in Rwanda and other parts of the world. That the US used international law to justify its failure to stop the media in Rwanda draws attention to the necessity of further international attention to how speech may be restricted in the interest of stopping grave human rights abuses. Recognizing the role of the media in the perpetration of these abuses necessitates further action to recognize "information intervention" as an important aspect of humanitarian intervention.
-top-

ENDNOTES

1. Metzl, Jamie. Information Intervention: "When Switching Channels isn't Enough", Foreign Affairs, Nov/Dec 1997.
2. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc A/810 at 71 (1948). From the University of Minnesota Human Rights Library.
3. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N GAOR Supp. (NO. 16) at 52, U.N. Doc. A/6316(1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171, entered into force Mar. 23, 1976. From the University of Minnesota Human Rights Library.
4. Australian Treaty Collection
5. Excerpt taken from Gross, Leo. "Some International Aspects of the Freedom of Information and the Right to Communicate". 195-216, National Sovereignty and International Communication, Kaarle Nordenstreng and Herbert Schiller, Eds. Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1979
6. ICCPR
7. Metzl, Jamie. 1997. "Rwandan Genocide and the International Law of Radio Jamming",
The American Journal of International Law, 642
8. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 78 U.N.T.S. 277, entered into force Jan. 12, 1951. From the University of Minnesota Human Rights Library
9. UNESCO Mass Media Declaration, 1978. From the UNHCHR website
10. Metzl., "Information Intervention: When Switching Channels isn't Enough"
11. Metzl. "Rwandan Genocide and the International Law of Radio Jamming". "While the strong preference in international law is to protect the sanctity of borders, the doctrine of humanitarian intervention defines a narrow exception to this standard, where state sovereignty can be infringed to halt large scale human rights violations.", 646
12. Metzl, Jamie. "Rwandan Genocide and the International Law of Radio Jamming"
13. Metzl, Jamie. "Information Intervention: When Switching Channels isn't Enough", 15
14. Ibid., 15
15. Ibid., 15
-top-