§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House
do now adjourn.—[Mr. Berry.]
1.22 am§ Mr. Cyril D. Townsend (Bexleyheath)If some people believe that I have picked an obscure topic for this, my twelfth Adjournment debate, let me at once disabuse them. I raise a matter which has profound implications for the free world. I raise a matter which strikes at ideas and ideals which have been fought for in the field and long cherished in this Chamber. If the principles of democracy are to survive in an increasingly hostile world, there must be a free exchange of information. The totalitarian State requires protection. The free State requires constant injections of the truth. We are engaged in a struggle for the hearts and minds of the people of this planet. We shall lose that struggle if our light cannot shine through the darkness that covers two-thirds of mankind.
I must make it clear that my shafts of criticism are not directed at UNESCO itself. I am vice-chairman of the United Nations Association political committee and I am full of praise for this international educational, scientific and cultural organisation. If it did not exist, it would have to be invented. My target is the dragon that it has produced —its new world information order.
At a conference in Belgrade a few weeks ago Britain and the West suffered a defeat of catastrophic proportions.
759 Surely it is right that the House should have an early debate on how that came about and how, having lost a major battle, we can turn the tide. Countries of the so-called Third world have complained for many years about the way in which their affairs are reported—or, more often, not reported. They feel, as The Times said in an editorial on 23 September, that
they are badly served by the present system of international reporting, since most of the main news organisations are western in origin and in orientation; they consider that information about developing countries tends too often to be superficial or sensational, and to focus on the shortcomings rather than the achievements of the countries concerned.They want to build up their media to serve their national audiences and to present their news to the rest of the world. I respect that point of view and I agree that it is a legitimate one. My hon. Friend the Minister of State in his impressive speech to the UNESCO conference said much the same thing. I am most grateful to him for coming to the House at this late hour to reply to the debate.Neither I nor my hon. Friend respects or agrees with UNESCO's proposed solutions—medicines 10,000 times more dangerous than the diagnosed disease. The cure is not less information but more of it, not more control by Governments but no control by Governments.
Rosemary Righter reported from Belgrade in The Sunday Times on 19 October. I pay tribute to her most able coverage of the conference and her earlier works. She wrote:
This challenge to the freedom of the press has been simmering for a decade at UNESCO, the UN organisation which, ironically, is required by its constitution to promote the free flow of ideas … Western governments belatedly woke up to the gravity of the political challenge six years ago when a Russian-backed resolution slipped on to UNESCO's agenda boldly asserting that states should have the power to control the contents of the news … These chickens have come home to roost at the UNESCO's conference".The new "world information order" approved in Belgrade at UNESCO's twenty-first general conference is based on the work of a 16-man commission appointed by UNESCO's director general. The commission, led by Mr. Sean MacBride, the former Irish Foreign Minister, produced a report that has been brilliantly condemned by Lord McGregor, professor of social institutions at London university and chairman of the Royal Commission on the press.I shall allow myself two quotes from Lord McGregor. He said:
Much of that report is a statement of familiar themes drawn from the so-called 'media sociology' produced by the radical left in recent years. From their point of view, the main function of the means of communication is to maintain the established order. They regard such concepts as freedom of the press and freedom of communication as mere fig leaves which conceal the real interest of the multinational Capitalist owners of the instruments of communication. Moreover, press and broadcasting is dominated by 'Western news values', and thus constitute a new form of cultural imperialism … The interim report reflects this view and is at pains to explain for politically unsophisticated readers why some earlier statements about freedom and the declarations of the United Nations can no longer be taken at their face value".Lord McGregor added:In such ways the interim report demonstrates that freedom is really tyranny and light another name for darkness. But then, abuse of language and the re-writing of history have been the habit of authoritarians throughout the ages.760 How did it come about that MacBride's upside down proposals were accepted in the main at Belgrade and without a vote? According to The Times of 28 October,Other Western countries shared the British concern, but evidently felt less strongly when it came to the decision. As a result, it was explained in Whitehall yesterday, Britain felt that rather than standing out in defiant isolation, it was preferable to go along with the rest of the Conference and fight another day.Four questions for my hon. Friend spring out of the report. The first is, is it accurate? If so, why did Britain not make it clear that on such a fundamental question as freedom of the press it could not go along with the consensus, even if it was prepared to go along on other matters? Above all, how come that there was such an amazing lack of co-ordination among the Western countries? What is Britain doing now to secure better Western co-ordination for the next and far more difficult round of the battle in 1983?The MacBride report left out such fundamental principles as the right to freedom of thought, opinion and expression, the free circulation of information and ideas, freedom of movement, freedom from censorship and arbitrary Government control and access to all sources of information, unofficial as well as official.
Are those principles no longer of vital concern to such countries as Germany, France, Canada and Australia? In the United States the constitution guarantees freedom of the press. The failure of the United States to give a lead—and it is the biggest piece on our side of the chess board alarms and astonishes me. Once again, the Carter Administration have fallen far below the level of events, presumably because they did not wish to offend such Third world countries as Syria or Cuba. Let us hope that the Reagan Administration are more robust, and let us work to make sure that they are.
I suspect that the basic failure in the West has been to see the new information order as a technical matter, best left to the specialists and interested concerns, rather than as a most dangerous and damaging political assault on Western beliefs and values.
At Belgrade, the Third world set out to shackle the Fourth Estate. Its united strength was used to approve a much larger overall budget for UNESCO, to veto Western proposals to divert funds from UNESCO's research programme to practical assistance projects, to request UNESCO to draw up the basic principles of the new information order and to consider producing a formal charter. According to Rosemary Righter, the conference agreed:
To support a Russian proposal (vehemently opposed by China as well as the West) for an international conference in 1983, which would reopen the question of the role of the media in promoting a whole series of just causes. This goes to the heart of the issue of State control.I believe that Belgrade should be sending shock waves throughout the West. The implications are immense. Let me read part of a letter sent to me by Mr. Nicholas Herbert, president of the Guild of British Newspaper Editors:The Guild's primary concern is with the proposal to offer protection to journalists because we can see that there will be a quid pro quo which will represent an unacceptable degree of torsgovernment interference with journalists. The argument will be that, in order to qualify for protection, a journalist will have to behave in some particular way that suits his own government. Alternatively, journalists will have to be registered or licensed, possibly by a trade union, which could produce a kind of international closed shop in journalism.761 It is not inconceivable to me that a future Socialist Government in Britain might find here international backing for restricting our press under the guise of protecting and fostering it.Next, let me; read out part of a speech by Mr. Gerald Long, managing director of Reuters, whose activities have been heavily and most unfairly criticised by UNESCO's director-general, Mr. McBow:
For every UNESCO meeting there is an all-purpose Soviet resolution to hand, saying that information should be used to promote peace and international understanding and to combat war propaganda, racism and apartheid. If you think like me that the purpose of information is to promote nothing but understanding of what the world and our masters are doing to us, the suggestion is that you are in favour of war, racism, apartheid and all other evils, as defined, of course, by the Soviet Union. The UNESCO view of information coincides with that of the Soviet Union: information may legitimately be, indeed always is, used for the purpose of power. UNESCO must therefore be seen to have taken sides on one of the major disputes between two of the great power groups.We should carefully note those words.The hour is late, but I wish to put forward a five-point charter for consideration. First, the media in this country and abroad must do more to alert the public and, through them, their political representatives to what has been proposed. Journalists have power of themselves to help themselves. After the conference there were one or two editorial, and then nothing.
Secondly, we should offer the Third world countries bilateral assistance on specific information projects, such as setting up their own news agencies. I am aware that we lave already done much in that direction. We could help to promote high technology support—for example, a complete computerised unit for the production of a daily newspaper. The cost would have to include training in the use of technology and editorial skills. In helping them we would help ourselves. We would demonstrate our belief that the benefits of freedom of information far outweigh the risks.
Thirdly, the Government should discuss the issue with our Community partners, and a suitably strong statement should follow the next meeting of Heads of State, so that the European Community's position is fair and square on he map.
Fourthly, Britain, having performed admirably at Belgrade and having more at stake than most, must take me lead in rallying the West, at least until the United States is ready to take over, against this Soviet-Third world axis.
Finally, The Economist said on 1 November:
If UNESCO comes to define the new order in terms of state control over the media, there will be only one course left for Britain—to get out of UNESCO.The rationale of such a decision—obviously it assumes a complete failure to get our case accepted—would be that no country should give its moral and financial support to an organisation that is working to curtail its freedom. I am not normally in favour of walking out of international organisations. On the whole, it is better to try to improve them from inside. However, I believe that the Government will have no alternative but to give serious consideration to a possible withdrawal.I have previously quoted from a magnificent speech by Lord McGregor, given to the IPTC conference in Madrid. I shall end with his beginning:
Free societies are easier to recognise than to define, but liberty of expression is a distinctive element in every definition. That liberty is the ability of any citizen to speak, write and 762 publish without constraints or fear of punishment, or penalty, save that the rights of other citizens must not be infringed thereby.As the House will know, in the war for freedom of communication there can never be successful battles, but there can never be a final victory.
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Blaker)I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) for giving the House the opportunity to debate the new world information order, which he has rightly described as being of great importance. He made a powerful speech, and by no means did he overstate the importance of the matter. I assure him that we shall study his speech with care.
The demand for this so-called new world information order is one that we have viewed with growing concern. As yet, the new order is an ill-defined and rather nebulous concept, full of political rhetoric. None the less, it is one that the Government take seriously because, as my hon. Friend said, it touches on a number of very basic principles regarding the freedom of information. Many Western countries have tended to regard this, as an essentially technical matter, and they have dealt with it accordingly. In our view, it is a political issue and we must deal with it on the political level. If we are to do that effectively, it is important that all those countries that believe in the freedom of information should consult each other and should operate more closely together than they have in the past.
Let me give briefly the background to this issue. The demand has arisen from some developing countries which are strongly critical of the present state of affairs. They argue that the Western media dominate international news flows and that their coverage of the Third world is at best partial and sensational. At worst, they claim, it is biased, inaccurate and unbalanced, and they say that their dependence on the Western media is imposing alien cultural values. They demand, therefore, that their own voices should be heard and that they must be given the capacity to communicate.
We accept that the developing countries are relatively at a disadvantage in communication and that there is a quantitative imbalance in the international flow of information. We share the common aspiration to see these gaps reduced. However, where we part company with many developing countries is in regard to the remedies. For us, the only new order which makes any sense is one which improves significantly on existing arrangements.
We therefore believe that the developing countries should be encouraged to expand their news, and information capabilities by building up the technical resources and professional skills that will enable them to communicate effectively. We already help them to do this. For example, in 1979 we provided under our official aid programme 116 awards for various training courses in the mass media. Thirty-five awards were given for training in telecommunications and a further 37 for courses concerned with adult education and literacy.
We also provide financial assistance for communication projects. Since 1976 at least 23 countries have benefited from our aid to the communication sector, and in 1979 over £27 million was allocated to this sector. In addition, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has contributed £25,000 to the Commonwealth media 763 exchange fund established after last year's Heads of Government meeting, and under its sponsored visitors scheme over 200 of those who came in 1979 were concerned with communication. Non-governmental organisations have also contributed. To single out a few the BBC, the Thomson Foundation and the Commonwealth Press Union have undertaken numerous training courses and workshops for people from the developing countries working in the media.
All these channels of assistance remain open. To those who argue that, none the less, relatively little assistance is given to the communication sector, the answer is simple. Most bilateral and multilateral aid is allocated largely in response to the wishes of the recipient countries. This is how it should be, the developing countries themselves deciding on their own development priorities and to which sectors the resources available should be allocated.
What we cannot accept is that international norms and regulations should be imposed or that measures should be taken which, whilst aiming to redress existing imbalances, have the effect of further restricting the present flows of information. We do not seek communication and information simply as instruments of power, as the prerogative of the State and wholly subservient to the political, social and cultural policies of the Government. Our view is that freedom of opinion and the freedom to seek and exchange ideas and information are fundamental human rights and in a democracy cannot be eroded.
This, then, is the danger of the so-called new order: that it will create a climate of opinion hostile to the free flow of ideas and information and will encourage Governments to impose even more restrictions on the media. We are not prepared to endorse Government control of information. Of course, we all know that the media in free countries are not perfect, that there is some trivialisation and some distortion of information. But this is the price that we pay for freedom of information.
Attempts to define internationally the obligations and responsibilities of States in this matter are dangerous. Objectivity and responsibility are not things that can be imposed by international decree but must come from the development of higher standards within the media themselves. Similarly, any codes of ethics should be devised by journalists, not by Governments.
Much of the international debate on communication issues has been concentrated in UNESCO. Although there are those who argue that UNESCO has no business at all in this field, we must face the fact that we cannot take it off UNESCO's agenda. What we have to do is to ensure that UNESCO keeps to its proper role. It should not be a function of UNESCO to devote its energies to the development of universally imposed standards in the field of communication. Nor should UNESCO become the stage for the propagation of one view of communication. Rather it must make what contribution it can to the development of greater capacities to communicate.
The recent general conference in Belgrade again considered many of these issues. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the generous things he said about the vote of the British delegation and about my own contribution. In particular, the conference had before it the director 764 general's report on the findings of the international commission for the study of communication problems—the MacBride report, to which my hon. Friend referred.
The British delegation was perhaps the most critical of the report, especially on the grounds that its conclusions left the impression that the evident imbalances in the field of communication should be corrected by increased State intervention or by international directive. The report showed also a marked antipathy towards the commercial sector in the media and seemed to assume that the activities of private firms, as opposed to State enterprises, would inevitably be bad.
As we anticipated, we had a great deal of difficulty with the subsequent negotiations, in which our delegation played a prominent part. These difficulties were compounded by the introduction by some countries of a draft resolution dealing with the MacBride report which purported to lay down a number of principles on which a new world information order should be based. Quite apart from questioning the need for such definition, we believed it wrong to lay down at this stage some principles which could not be comprehensive. It was, therefore, with reluctance that we agreed finally not to stand against the consensus on this resolution. The reason why we took that decision was that if we had done so we would have done so alone.
However, our final acquiescence in a consensus should not be misinterpreted. We took the decision primarily in order to preserve our position in future negotiations, both within the Western group and within UNESCO. As we said in Belgrade, the avoidance of a vote is not the same thing as total agreement. Our statement made immediately after the adoption of the resolution spelt out our strong reservations. In particular, we felt that the "considerations" listed in the resolution were too negative. Too much stress is laid on the right and responsibilities of countries—that is, Governments—and not enough on the right of individuals.
The UNESCO general conference passed another resolution which invited the director general to undertake studies with a view to drawing up the basic principles of a new world information and communication order. We voted against this resolution, believing that such a definition was both unnecessary and undesirable. However, the resolution was adopted. I can assure the House that we shall continue to press strongly our views on this matter. If we are to have such a defintion, we must insist that it asserts unequivocally our basic principles.
A more encouraging development was the establishment of a new international programme for the development of communication. This provides an opportunity for UNESCO to leave aside the ideological questions and to make a real contribution to the many practical issues of communication development. In particular, this programme could provide a consultative mechanism which would make easier the co-ordination of communication assistance, and we hope that it could proceed in an efficient and businesslike manner.
For our part, we have a long and continuing record of substantial assistance to the communication sector in developing countries from both Government and private sources.
I have spelt out some of the things we have done. We believe that our flexible approach has the considerable advantage of being able to respond to the particular needs and circumstances of individual countries. We stand ready 765 to share our expertise and to assist where we can in the future. This we consider to be a positive and constructive response to the desire for a new world order.
I hope I have demonstrated that the Government take these communications issues very seriously and will continue to do so. We do not intend to relax our vigilance between now and the next general conference in three years' time. We intend to build up co-operation with all those, like ourselves, who believe that there are basic principles at stake.
There are three points which I regard as being of fundamental importance. First, we received invaluable assistance from the media in this country in our preparations for the Belgrade conference. We are determined that the closest co-operation with the media should continue, and we shall arrange for regular and detailed consultations with media representatives with this and in view. Our interests are shared with them, and this should be reflected in our approach to these important issues.
Second, the Belgrade conference displayed a distressing lack of unity in the Western camp. In spite of two 766 meetings called by the United Kingdom of like-minded countries, we were not able to achieve sufficient concerted action. We shall embark on close consultation with our friends and allies about these issues, both bilaterally and in the organisations to which we and they belong. These questions must be discussed within the European Community, and at gatherings of the Commonwealth. The Western interest is a shared one. We stand together in this matter, just as we do over the other vital questions affecting our freedoms.
Finally, the basis of our activity—and I stress that we intend to be very active in this area—is our strong conviction that the communications issue in UNESCO is a political one, which must be treated as such by all of us. While we must not blind ourselves to the need of the developing world and our own need to respond to it, we must remain alive to the danger that these needs can be exploited by people with no interest in press freedom; and we must continue to uphold the principles of objectivity and truth with all the vigour we can command.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Two o'clock.