Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Let me first express my sincere delight and pleasure to be back in Belgrade, in the Balkans region, or South Eastern Europe as it is now being called, which is so close to my heart.  I am also very pleased to have been invited to speak at this international conference which will for two days discuss the role of media in times of conflict, but moreover and very importantly, the crucial role that media can have in times of peace building, in transition from dictatorship or oppression to democracy, and finally, in reconciliation and rehabilitation the societies.

Tomorrow, we will celebrate the World Press Freedom Day. On this day we will pay our respect to the brave women and men who choose to conduct their profession with truth as their guideline and who therefore risk their freedom, or sometimes their lives.

In 2003, over 40 journalists were killed, because they practised their profession of journalism, and because the way they did it was not liked by someone. Another close to 800 journalists were arrested last year, and at least 1,460 were physically attacked or threatened.

Many of the killed journalists have been murdered because they have been threat to the ruling regime, on national or local level. They have maybe been carrying out investigative journalism and writing or preparing to write about corruption where politicians or authorities have been involved in. Some of the journalists might have been killed because they have been a potential threat to the profitable business practices of criminal gangs: they might have written about smuggling or trafficking of different type: human trafficking, or organs, arms, weapons or drug trafficking.

Threats, intimidation and violence against journalists is an efficient way to oppress media. It serves as a warning to other journalists: if you dare to report unwanted facts, this can happen to you too.

We regularly also hear about other types of oppression against media through legislation, administrative practices and decisions, and court cases, including cases of libel and defamation. In some countries libel is still a criminal offense. Of course media should not be able to write lies about individuals without standing behind its words, but a certain level of criticism against personalities in public positions should be tolerated. Also, it is really the role of the media to raise issues of public interest and help to keep the authorities accountable for their actions, or non-action.

Recently in some countries we have seen cases where it has been very clear that court decisions on libel have been used to force media out of business. Heavy fines have been ordered on some media outlets and it has been clear that as these fines would be impossible to pay, the media would have to close down. There are also equally clear cases where administrative decisions are used to withdraw licenses from unwanted media.

Even opening of the media market to the business interests is not always guaranteeing freedom for the media. On the contrary, in some countries the ownership of all media of the country has ended up in the hands of one or two companies, which of course is something that has to be observed carefully. The challenge is how not to let the media ownership to influence the editorial independence of the outlet, be it a newspaper, television or radio. It would be naive to believe that ownership has no influence whatsoever on the content of broadcasting or reporting; however, I believe that we have to keep as an overall goal the editorial independence, and writing based on facts and neutral analysis.

All in all, an innovative regime can always invent numerous ways to oppress the media. This is something where we all, as citizens, should remain vigilant and not let the government get away with it.

But media does of course also have responsibility. The power of media, in particular TV, can be huge - it should not misuse its powers.  We know of cases where media has not merely kept to its obligation to report the facts, but where it has sought to display the facts in a certain light, or sometimes even distorted them. This can be dangerous, especially in a society that is recovering from a conflict, where for example ethnic relations are in an explosive state, or where information is scarce and there are few opportunities to hear different viewpoints.

In Rwanda the governmental media was outright inciting the killings; there was radio and TV reporting where Hutus were called to kill Tutsis. In many other wars TV has been used as propaganda instrument by governments to depict the other side as monsters, against whom, even civilians, it would be totally allowed to attack. We strongly condemn this. But it is also scary when media, without even been ordered by the regime, and pretending to serve as a free reporter of the facts, uses news reporting one-sidedly, and with the purpose of angering the public and taking matters in its own hands. The reporting by media in the first days of the recent Kosovo unrest did nothing to help to keep the moods down -  but rather on the contrary.

I am aware that there are people who believe that media freedom means that it is entitled to write whatever it wants, whenever it wants, and however it wants. I personally believe that a cornerstone of free media is the right to report the facts. No freedom however comes without responsibility. This is all linked to professionalism as well. It is always easiest to throw out whatever claims one has heard in the streets. But professionalism means that the facts are checked, they are analysed, and presented in a format that is fare. And it is encouraging that there are journalists who keep up the ethics of journalism and that in some places, such as I believe in Serbia, journalists have formed their own ethic boards, when questions of freedom and responsibility are being discussed.

I am often a little bit annoyed about the way women are depicted in media, especially how women are shown in conflicts. We always refer to women only as victims; we talk about women and children and other vulnerable groups; we see pictures of women with children in their laps, hiding in the doorways, sitting helplessly by the fire, maybe crying. This is very sad, and, very often true. But women are also an active force we should not forget. Women have to be included in peace negotiations and peace processes, as the UN Security Council Resolution 1325 calls us to do. Women form over 50% of the population in most countries; without their active input and participation no lasting peace can be created. This is why media should also take their responsibility in portraiting the strong women, who are ready to take their responsibility in building up their country peacefully after a conflict.

The power of the media in warfare is formidable. It can be a mediator, or an interpretor or even facilitator of conflict, if only by editing away the facts that do not fit the demands of air time or print space.

All in all, the media has a crucial role, for better or for worse, in time of conflict, as well as in peace-making after a conflict. It can have an influence that is greater than of any politician. We should therefore all encourage and support media’s positive role in peace-making and in reconciliation. I believe that the media can certainly never have too large a role in the efforts to build lasting peace. It should thus proudly take and nourish its positive role.