Hard-Nosed and Hard Up

In many ways, the case of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl is anomalous. He is, as yet, the highest profile casualty of the war on terrorism, and he died as a civilian in Pakistan rather than as a soldier in Afghanistan. He was murdered not to defend against the American incursion into Central Asia but ostensibly for other reasons--to promote the release of imprisoned terrorists, because his murderers alleged he was a spy for Israel's Mossad, and because he was a Jew.

But there are other aspects to his murder that are not at all unusual. Journalists all over the world are kidnapped, incarcerated, and murdered in alarming numbers each year. Even more alarming is that persecutions of reporters are not all carried out by terrorists. In fact, many of the world's worst perpetrators of crimes against journalists are the states and autocrats that reporters cover. Ayatollah Khamenei, Jiang Zemin, Robert Mugabe, Vladimir Putin, and Fidel Castro stand apart as particularly odious in their treatment of journalists.

Those men, who are among the Committee to Protect Journalists' "Ten Worst Enemies of the Press," lead regimes that regularly abuse reporters. They often harass journalists who report on their governments (sometimes critically), lobbing accusations of sedition or treason--a charge that underscores the fundamental way in which these countries misunderstand the basic idea of journalism.

The CPJ reported that in 2001, 37 journalists worldwide were killed on the job, up 24 from the previous year. The number of journalists in prison jumped nearly 50 percent to 118. Most of them died or were jailed in reprisals for their coverage of official crime and corruption. And many countries, following America's embarrassing lead, invoked so-called national security protections to limit press access to official information.

The free press, with which America and the Western world are blessed, is essential to a successful democracy for one very important reason: it keeps government and industry accountable to the people they are meant to serve. Hard-nosed journalism can be relied upon to investigate corruption, human rights abuses, and iniquitous labor practices--services that the "Ten Worst" despots despise.

But most troubling of all is how developed countries allow the regimes of some of the "Ten Worst" (especially Zemin, Mugabe, and Putin) to get away with murder--sometimes literally--because of standing economic and strategic investments. America, which exemplifies a thriving free press (even if the incumbent administration is notoriously reticent), seems only to pay the requisite lip service in the case of countries like Iran, Cuba, and Colombia where the government has made unabashed attempts to silence those who would portray it critically.

Which is why the coverage Daniel Pearl received is heartening. Pakistani President Musharraf, whose rule resembles in many ways the regimes of the "Ten Worst," responded admirably, condemning acts of kidnapping and ransom, launching an extensive intelligence investigation, and vigorously prosecuting Pearl's killers. It is a sign that America can pressure even the most anti-democratic leaders with otherwise mediocre track records into respecting the press.

Of course, the case of Pearl and Pakistan has its aberrations. Pearl's murderers were, ironically, extremely press-savvy, and their act was singularly gruesome. Also, Pakistan stands to gain immensely by toeing the American line. But given American's geopolitical gravitas, the administration could make it clear that all tyrants stand to gain immensely by toeing the American line.

Additionally, Daniel Pearl, although he was one of many journalists kidnapped and murdered this year, was the only American journalist to suffer his particular fate. The retributive behavior America has shown Pearl's killers is a justifiable response because it sets a precedent and a deterrent to would-be molesters of American reporters. And although the onus does not fall solely on the United States to prosecute press-haters that batter Canadian, Colombian, or Cambodian reporters, it should still try.

America's response to Pearl's murder is essentially reactive, as is its response to most of the world's press-related transgressions. If the United States were to take a proactive position regarding press freedom in despotic regimes, it might stir drastic change. Unfortunately, the idea that American diplomacy could dissolve press oppression is probably too abstract to cause policy change in the administration. But if Bush issued an ultimatum to authoritarians like Zemin and Khamenei, he might unmask the voices that indicate real democracy.

If the smothered citizenries in China and Iran could reignite authentic debate on op-ed pages and in newspapers, democracy would swell into a reality as it did during Gorbachev's "thaw" concurrent with the fall of the Soviet Union.

Although Danny Pearl's murder elicited considerable attention in America, it was not all because of the repression it represented. If America responded to the murder of all journalists the way it responded in Pakistan, the world would be much safer for democracy. Just treatment of journalists should go hand in hand with America's perennial quest for worldwide democracy, because without freedom of the press, there can be no true democracy.Adam B. Kushner is a Columbia College junior majoring in ancient studies.