Worldfocus

Zhou Yang. Photo: CCTV

Hsin-Yin Lee, a former associate producer at Worldfocus, is a news editor at the “China Times” in Taipei.

China’s 18-year-old Olympic champion has recently learned something — it’s OK to thank your parents for your success, but always remember to first thank your country.

Zhou Yang, who won a gold medal in the women’s 1,500 meters short-track speed skating during the Vancouver Winter Olympic, has come under fire — and been complimented — for mentioning her parents but failing to thank the country after the award ceremony.

When asked “What does this prize mean to you?” by the Chinese media, Zhou said, “The gold medal might bring a lot of changes. I will be more confident, and Dad and Mom’s life will be improved.”

Sports officials, however, have found Zhou’s candid words lacking. During a group discussion of the annual meeting of China’s legislature last Sunday, Yu Zaiqing, deputy director of the National Sports Bureau, expressed doubt about Zhou’s patriotism.

“It’s fine to thank your mom and dad, but you should still thank your country first and foremost,” he said. Yu also said the authorities should enhance the “moral education” for China’s athletes.

“While the Western way of expression is very good, there were things in (Zhou’s) heart that the kid didn’t fully express,” Yu said. “Don’t just talk about your parents.”

To fix her previous remarks, Zhou said in another interview on Monday that she is of course grateful for her country. “I thank the country for making us good enough to compete in the Olympic. I thank our supporters, thank my coach, thank the staff, and thank my parents.”

Chinese netizens have weighed in on the controversy.  “Zhou should say ‘I thank my country — I thank my country because it allows me to thank my parents after thanking it,’” wrote one commentator,

China’s athlete training programs have long been criticized as both inhumane and ineffective. Zhou’s story reminds me of the Australian Open earlier this year, when two Chinese players, Zheng Jie and Li Na, marched to the women’s semifinals. It was the first time the world’s most populous nation had advanced so far in a Grand Slam.

While the head of the Women’s Tennis Association lauded this as an example of  Chinese tennis coming of age, critics said a more flexible national athlete training system, in place since 2008,  played a key factor. Zheng and Li were among the four top tennis players in China who were granted unprecedented freedom in managing their careers. In other words, they are free to select their own schedules, coaches and teams. With less obligation to China’s national athletic development system, they are also able to pocket more prize money and give less to the Chinese Tennis Association — which surely raises the motivation to compete.

An article in Tennis magazine may have summed up many people’s feelings. Since the reform, it noted,  “(China’s tennis players) are no longer just Chinese players; they are professional tennis players from China.”

Should the current athletic system in China be further modified so that people like Zhou Yang can be both a happy player and a happy person? I think so. After all, sport is all about humanity, and only when a person’s mind is set free can he or she pursue greater physical strength.

- Hsin-Yin Lee

Gay Pride Flag. Photo: Flickr user Stefan

Worldfocus partner World Pulse is a media enterprise covering global issues through the eyes of women. This post, written by Zimbabwean blogger Gertrude Pswarayi, is excerpted from their Action Blogging Campaign around LGBT Rights.

This story was written by a lesbian (name witheld for protection) living in Zimbabwe during a digital storytelling workshop. I have not edited the story because i wanted you, the reader to hear what she has to say. Here is her story:

My fears started when I was getting to know myself. My family and people around me said I acted like a boy. Although I was afraid I did what came naturally to me.

At school it was worse, I was afraid again because when the girls in my class were busy with the boys, I had feelings for some of the girls in my school. My fear grew, I could not control it since all the ladies around me were getting boyfriends and even my sisters were getting into troubles at home because of boys.

At that time I was not completely sure what was happening to me and why I was not interested in men, I was confused.

That made my fears grow stronger. I was afraid of what my family and friends would think or say if I told them what I was feeling. At that time I feared what the future would hold for me because I was told that I was a lady and that I have to get married to a man and have children and so on. Yet I knew that was not the life I wanted for myself.

Although my friends, my true friends are aware of my sexuality, I am still afraid that my family will find out one day and reject me. The fear is always there as I listen to comments made about homosexuality at home and in public places.

I listen hoping that no one will notice how silent I am or see the raw fear in my eyes.

Not being able to open up to my family about who I am, what I am, and the kind of feelings I carry inside me pushed me to join a group. It was in this group where I was able to share my story with other people. My fears disappeared as I got more answers for the question of my identity. I met people who seemed to hold a mirror in front of me, showing me who I was and letting me know that it was ok to be … who I am.

The Ushahidi-Chile project map on March 2.

The Ushahidi crisis mapping site, which recently collated information from Haitian earthquake victims, has set up a sister site to aggregate similar data from Chile, a country recovering from a devastating 8.8-magnitude quake.

Ushahidi-Chile collects, filters and then maps information submitted by citizens via email, text message and Twitter feeds. This Ushahidi project is coordinated by students at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) and its goal is to guide the relief effort and identify immediate needs.

“The idea behind the site is to provide as much information as possible to organizations in the field and to people in Chile,” said Anahi Ayala Iacucci, co-director of the SIPA team for Ushahidi-Chile. “We put available information onto a map that anyone can access.”

An advantage of the site, she says, is that it combines individual nuggets of information in one place and can help establish an overview of the situation on the ground.

Messages currently on the site include information on medical emergencies, trapped survivors and structural damage. For example, from Santa Cruz: “No Electricity, Buildings Down in Santa Cruz”. Another message from Santiago reads “Plz Help: im stuck under a building with my child”. According to Ayala Iacucci, information on missing people is passed on to Google’s Missing Person Finder site.

“Our major source of information is from Twitter feeds, the web and from monitoring local media,” said Ayala Iacucci, adding that there is still reasonable access to the internet in Chile. In Haiti, by contrast, most information that Ushahidi received was by text message. Around 50 student volunteers at SIPA - many of them from Latin America - translate the collected information and then input the data onto the interactive map.

The project will continue at SIPA until the operation is handed over to Chilean volunteers. “In this sense it is a full circle,” said Ayala Iacucci. “We receive information from the field, and put it back into field.”

Ushahidi means “testimony” in Swahili and was initially founded in early 2008 to monitor and map post-election violence in Kenya.

To send Ushahidi information about the aftermath of Chile’s earthquake: International text message +44 7624802524/e-mail chile@ushahidi.com/Twitter #chile or #terremotochile. Information can also be submitted via the web.

- James Matthews

Listen to an audio interview with freelance journalist Annie Murphy in Concepción.

Photo: US Mission Canada

Inuit are the indigenous inhabitants of an Arctic region that crosses Canada, Alaska, Russia and Greenland. In April 2009, Inuit came together from across the Arctic Circle and issued a declaration establishing their rights to self-determination.

In a leap forward for indigenous self-rule, in 1999 the Canadian government created an Inuit majority territory, Nunavut, meaning “our land” in the Inuit language. Covering 1.9 million square kilometers and home to 29,000 residents, most of them Indigenous, its decentralized government allows Inuit to take control of their own affairs.

Worldfocus spoke with Stephen Hendrie, the Director of Communications at Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Canada’s national Inuit organization based in Ottawa, about the issue.

Worldfocus: What has been the impact of the creation of the territory of Nunavut?

Hendrie: The creation of the Nunavut territory — the biggest jurisdiction in the Americas with an aboriginal majority — remains an inspiration.

The territory garnered international headlines when it changed the map of Canada on April 1, 1999 for the first time since 1949. People always look to the Nunavut territory as the place where most Inuit live in Canada. In fact less than 50% of Inuit live in Nunavut. The three other Inuit regions in Canada– Inuvialuit, Nunavik, and Nunatsiavut– have either established a regional government (Nunatsiavut), are on the verge of doing so (Nunavik), or continue to work on a form of one (Inuvialuit).

The 53 Inuit communities located in “Inuit Nunangat” (the region Inuit in Canada describe as the Inuit homeland located in the Inuvialuit Region of the NorthWest Territories, Nunavut, Nunavik in Northern Quebec and Nunatsiavut in Labrador) enjoy unique forms of power-sharing within Canada through the provisions of comprehensive land claim agreements (modern ‘treaties’). These agreements, which define power-sharing arrangements governing public administration and the ownership, use and management of natural resources, have Constitutional protection.

When you look at the picture overall, Inuit have achieved extraordinary advances within the Canadian political landscape, and that has been done in a peaceful manner over the course of the past 35-40 years.

The push for further advances continues, with key issues being economic development, overcoming a legacy of problems in relation to the core social services of health, education and housing, and the preservation of the Inuit language.

Worldfocus: How much is the traditional Inuit way of life changing in response to modern pressures?

Hendrie: What if this question were turned around? What if “Westerners” were surprised to learn that the Inuit perspective to this question is that the “Western” way of life is being adapted by Inuit in the service of preserving the traditional Inuit way of life? Inuit didn’t stop hunting when ski-doos were introduced. Inuit simply hunted more efficiently. Inuit don’t see an Internet dominated by English as merely a threat. Inuit are using the Internet to preserve language and culture. See isumatv.ca for an example of the internet in use as a tool for the preservation of Inuit language and culture.

Worldfocus: How would you compare the condition of Inuit in Canada with those in Alaska?

Hendrie: Inuit in Canada and Alaska face many similar challenges, such as the need to ensure adequate Inuit control over major non-renewable resource development projects, the need to overcome gaps in basic living conditions, the challenge of preserving language and culture, and combating the efforts by internationally organized animal rights extremists to undermine the livelihoods of hunting peoples everywhere.

Inuit in Canada and Alaska do live in larger societies with different Constitutions and political traditions, and these differences color Inuit realities and priorities in the two countries. For example, Canadian Inuit have access to universal public health insurance and a history of much greater access to public housing; Alaskan Inuit have demonstrated the high level of entrepreneurial initiative characteristic of American society in general.

- Jamie Macfarlane

An Aboriginal Australian dancer. Photo: PaddyNapper on Flickr

Worldfocus intern Jamie Macfarlane writes about the Australian government’s attempts to make amends for historical injustice to Aboriginal people.

“We apologize for the laws and policies of successive parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians…”

In February 2008, newly elected Prime Minister Kevin Rudd made a historic move in offering a full and unreserved apology for Australia’s historic treatment of Aborigines.

But many Western countries have a deep unease about such apologies. Rudd’s predecessor, Prime Minister John Howard, would only describe his “regret,” and in the United States, no president has ever come close to publicly addressing the totality crimes inflicted on Native Americans.

Apologies are hard to give when the historical narrative of a nation’s ascendancy entirely sidesteps what happened to its indigenous inhabitants.

When Rudd spoke two years ago outside the halls of parliament, a crowd of Aborigines listened — many in tears — displaying what it meant to be recognized.

At the time, skeptics argued that Rudd — who refused to make any financial reparations — had made a meaningless apology. Australian prime ministers, like presidents of the United States, have long been promising that their government would finally reverse ill treatment of the indigenous population.

However, time and time again, these new dawns have quickly faded.

Prime Minister Rudd returned to parliament last week to report on the “next chapter in the history of this great country.” The prime minister reported that progress was slow because “generations of indigenous disadvantage cannot be turned around overnight.”

Rudd’s new chapter rests upon a $4.8 billion Close the Gap program, targeting Aboriginal disadvantages from high infant mortality to poor education levels.

By almost every socioeconomic indicator, Aboriginal poverty is reminiscent of sub-Saharan Africa. The life expectancy of indigenous people in Australia is 17 years lower than the rest of the population; the rate of infant mortality is twice as high; and, an ethnic group that makes up 2% of the population accounts for 24% of the incarcerated.

“Lady, I pay rent to the government for sleeping on a mattress in the desert. I have no home, I don’t have a voice, no one is listening to me or my family,” said a 90 year old Aboriginal elder to Irene Khan, Secretary General of Amnesty International.

Rudd’s assessment of his Aboriginal policies two years on largely ignored the second great Indigenous issue: native sovereignty.

Unlike in America, where a library of treaties sets out the parameters of tribal sovereignty, Australia has historically made little pretense at recognizing Aboriginal land rights. Australia had legally been a terra nullis, and thus, the first property rights belonged to the settlers.

It was not until 1992 that the Supreme Court finally overruled the concept of terra nullis, leaving in its wake a persistent ambiguity over when Aboriginals can claim back land.

This is the fundamental problem for indigenous sovereignty the world over. Nations like Australia and the United States were built upon the seizure of indigenous land based upon a legality that cannot be justified in the modern day. Today, with any new chapter for indigenous people invariably involving the return of their lands, how can modern nations redress past injustice — whilst protecting the property interests of the dominant group?

There is also little consensus on the issue of whether to follow the American Indian model of communal land ownership or to allow Aboriginals to assume private land rights. The former keeps indigenous community lands together, whilst the latter gives Aborigines that cornerstone of Western society: individual property rights.

Another big problem with Prime Minister Rudd’s understanding of indigenous sovereignty is an ongoing Intervention in the Northern Territory, where Aborigines make up 32.5% of the population. Rudd has continued his predecessor’s policy of suspending indigenous rights of self-government in the Northern Territory with the help of a police and military presence.

Aborigine communities are banned from having alcohol; the federal government dictates where natives can spend their welfare payments; and parents are heavily punished if their children fail to attend school.

This controversial policy was precipitated by a shocking report concerning widespread child abuse among indigenous communities in 2007.

Indigenous politicians are outraged, but Rudd faces a dilemma that displays the fundamental paradox of his position. The government feels that it must interfere to deal with desperate problems in indigenous communities, whilst needing to respect Aboriginal sovereignty.

Many argue that this is the problem with the entire “Close the Gap” program, as Rudd tries to deliver change from Canberra — as opposed to empowering native communities.

The issue with Rudd’s apology is that it is far from clear how Australia can make amends. The daunting task of closing the gap is met with an equally challenging question of how to give Aboriginal governments control of their own lands.

- Jamie Macfarlane

Aafia Siddiqui.

Worldfocus contributing blogger Sana Saleem writes about the Pakistani reaction to the trial of Aafia Siddiqui, the Pakistani neuroscientist convicted of trying to kill American soldiers while in custody in Afghanistan.

Of all the stories about alleged Al Qaeda members, perhaps none has been more peculiar than that of Aafia Siddiqui. Due to its peculiar nature, I would like to go back to where it all began.

Here’s a summary of incidents as they were reported in chronological order, for better understanding:

The US-educated Pakistani neuroscientist first appeared on the news radar in March 2003. According to her family, Aafia left her home on March 30 with her three children in a Metro-Cab to catch a flight to Rawalpindi. She then disappeared, and her family alleges that she was kidnapped by Pakistani agencies and subsequently handed over to American agencies.

Despite the Siddiqui family’s accusations, the FBI continued to deny reports of Aafia’s abduction. Meanwhile, a story in Newsweek described Aafia as “reportedly arrested.” By this time, Aafia had been linked with Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.

Aafia’s family continued to demand attention to her disappearance, For instance, a letter from her uncle published in Dawn in March 2004 provides a chronology of Aafia’s disappearance. Another letter, published in May 2004, states that Aafia’s mother and sister have been put under house arrest and are not being allowed to contact anyone – the arrest was seen as retaliation for the previous letter.

In May 2004, the Interior Minister confirmed speculations regarding Aafia by confirming that she was arrested from Karachi and handed over to the US authorities for allegedly being involved in terrorist activities.

Meanwhile, more information was gathered about these alleged terrorist activities. Reports surfaced that Aafia and her husband purchased night-vision goggles and body armour from an online military store; that she opened a post office box for Majid Khan, a Pakistani who was held at Guantanamo on suspicion that he planned attacks on American gas stations; and, most importantly, that she traveled to Monrovia to buy diamonds which were then used to fund Al Qaeda operations.

The authorities were unable to provide evidence for these allegations, which is why Aafia has not faced terror charges.

For the next two years, Aafia’s case remained shrouded in mystery until her name appeared in Amnesty International’s list of disappeared suspects in the war on terror. More reports poured in suggesting she was detained in a secret U.S. prison.

However, it wasn’t until August 2008 that Aafia’s case was brought to the forefront. A crackdown on the media by General Pervez Musharraf’s government caused journalists to take up Aafia’s case as part of a campaign exposing the general’s heinous crimes.

During a press conference organized by the Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaf, British journalist Yvonne Ridley claimed that an anonymous woman sometimes referred to as “Prisoner 650” being tortured at Bagram Airbase may have been Aafia.

Ridley claimed that she was told that a female prisoner had been held for years and, after sexual abuse and confinement, had deteriorated physically and mentally. Ridley’s speculation that the woman could be Aafia stirred the issue in the media.

That day marked the beginning of the campaign vowing to bring justice to Aafia. She was portrayed as ‘Pakistan’s daughter’ who had been sold to the U.S. for money. As the issue of the missing people of Pakistan reached a turning point, Aafia came to symbolise the atrocities linked to the U.S.-led the war on terror, and her case exposed the collaboration between Pakistani and U.S. authorities.

Aafia also attracted international attention as the first woman to be sought by the FBI in connection with its pursuit of al-Qaeda. Last week, she was found guilty on charges of the attempted murder of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.

Aafia’s conviction has provoked many emotional responses that show little regard for the judicial process.

“The jury couldn’t handle the truth because that would have meant that the defendant really had been kidnapped, abused, tortured and held in dark, secret prisons by the US before being shot and put on a rendition flight to New York,” remarked journalist Ridley when I asked her opinion on the verdict.

“It would have meant that her three children – two of them US citizens – would also have been kidnapped, abused and tortured by the US. They couldn’t handle the truth; it is as simple as that.”

Arif Rafiq, president of Vizier Consulting, LLC, also raises some valid points regarding the verdict:

Before us, it seems, are two competing narratives. But I would not rule out other alternatives. The actual details, of Siddiqui’s arrest — whether it occurred five years ago or two weeks ago — is unclear. The initial claims made against her years ago are cause for concern. But it is puzzling as to why, if they were true, there was no legal followup. Even now, those claims go unmentioned in the present legal action against her. Siddiqui is not being treated as an enemy combatant; rather, she’s being prosecuted in conventional U.S. courts, albeit in a more closed anti-terrorism context. And so Siddiqui’s arrest provides not answers, but more questions.

Indeed, the majority in Pakistan echo the same sentiment of dismay and anger. Aafia’s case highlights the underlying mistrust amongst the Pakistani people for the United States, as many have openly criticised the judgement, and termed it biased.

Some claim they never expected a different verdict because U.S. courts can’t be trusted to uphold the truth. Such statements are far more worrying then the verdict itself. The growing rift between the masses in Pakistan and U.S. authorities is distressful.

If anything, Aafia’s case should turn the nation’s attention towards Pakistan’s ‘missing persons’ issue. Aafia’s trial has not been able to yield satisfactory answers about where she was, who picked her up and why, or even who she really is. If anything, her outbursts in court make her appear delusional, depressive and possibly psychotic.

The only outcome of Aafia’s verdict has been a surge of even more questions. But her misery has given a face to hundreds of Pakistan’s disappeared victims awaiting justice.

- Sana Saleem

Watch Al Jazeera English’s David Chater report on Siddiqui’s “lost years.”

A street in Baalbeq, Lebanon, where Hezbollah’s headquarters is located. Photo: Ben Piven

Cari Machet, who has lived and worked as a multimedia producer throughout the Middle East, writes about a new House bill that could sanction satellite operators if they contract their services to TV stations classified as terrorist entities by Congress. She argues it may prove to be counterproductive.

Last month Congress passed H.R. 2278, which would label certain Middle Eastern satellite providers of incendiary television programming as terrorist organizations — in an effort to prevent radical anti-Americanism from hitting the airwaves.

Representative Gus Bilirakis (R-Florida) introduced the legislation that would label satellite TV channels and content providers as “Specially Designated Global Terrorists” or SDGTs.

The wording of the bill seems too broad to enact and as yet has not been pushed through the Senate.

This bill is almost a carbon copy of a bill passed by Congress in 2008, H.Res.1069, which condemned the use of television programming by Hamas to indoctrinate hatred, violence and Antisemitism.

The earlier bill mainly focused on al-Aqsa TV, the channel run by Palestinian militant organization Hamas. The bill particularly targeted children’s program Tomorrow’s Pioneers, which depicts a Bugs Bunny-like character declaring that he “will finish off the Jews and eat them.”

The station recently launched a new cartoon satirizing a Fatah soldier named Bahlul (Buffoon) and a “blood-drinking Jew.” The network also operates its own film studio where they shoot movies they call the “cinema of resistance.”

Al-Aqsa TV is currently transmitted by satellites owned by the French-based, privately owned Eutelsat and by the Saudi-based, Arab League-owned Arabsat.

The new bill mainly targets Lebanese Hezbollah’s al-Manar TV channel. The station is telecast throughout the Arab world via Arabsat and the Egyptian-based, state-owned Nilesat.

Hezbollah is a Shi’a Islamist political and paramilitary organization that provides social services and operates schools, hospitals and agricultural services for Lebanese Shiites. They hold 11 seats in the Lebanese parliament.

The United States designates Hezbollah a terrorist group, and its militant wing has been linked to several major terrorist attacks. But the E.U. has resisted the terrorist label, with some countries arguing that engagement is a better policy.

Some Lebanese object strenuously to the bill. Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri sent a letter to the U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi stating, “This bill represents bypassing the sovereign national laws of the targeted countries, among them Lebanon which is a free ‘Hyde Park’ for the Lebanese and Arab satellite ‘public opinion’ media channels.”

The passing of the bill prompted an Arab League meeting in Cairo on Jan 24th. The Arab information ministers released a statement after that meeting that censured the bill and called it “an interference in the internal affairs of Arab states who regulate their media affairs according to national legislation.”

“We insist on media freedom and reject any restrictions on it,” said Lebanese Information Minister Tareq Mitri.

During that meeting, participants discussed another proposal supported by the Egyptian and Saudi governments for the creation of a regional office to supervise Arab satellite TV stations — which might even impact the BBC Arabic (and BBC World) channels, or even the U.S.- government owned news channel Alhurra.

But the Lebanese government is against the idea of a pan-Arab media commission. Reporters Without Borders concurs: “The danger is that this super-police could be used to censor all TV stations that criticize the region’s governments. It could eventually be turned into a formidable weapon against freedom of information.”

Throughout the Mideast, mainstream American media saturates free satellite airwaves. Some is censored for content, but not always news content. There is a lack of knowledge among the bill’s supporters of the breadth and power of American culture, which blasts on radios, beams out of flat screen televisions and flashes on computers everywhere.

As President Obama said in his State of the Union speech: “Abroad, America’s greatest source of strength has always been our ideals.”

Of course the Senate is a far different body than the House. Also, the president would have to sign H.R. 2278 into law, but so far there is no comment from the White House regarding the bill.

Marc Lynch writes about the bill on Foreign Policy:

In short, H.R. 2278 is a deeply irresponsible bill which sharply contradicts American support for media freedom and could not be implemented in the Middle East today as crafted without causing great damage. Even Arab governments who despise Hamas and Hezbollah and Qaradawi and al-Jazeera could not sign on to it…The last thing the Arab world needs right now is more state power of censorship over the media — whether the Arab League over satellite TV or the Jordanian government over the internet. Hillary Clinton just laid out a vision of an America committed to internet freedom, and that should be embraced as part of a broader commitment to free and open media. Nobody should be keen on restoring the power of authoritarian governments over one of the few zones of relative freedom which have evolved over the last decade.

- Cari Machet

Photo by Ben Piven for Worldfocus

North Korea is one of the most closed-off societies in the world. Information from inside the country is notoriously difficult to gather.

Radio signals are jammed, internet connections blocked and cell phones monitored. To combat this lack of information some news organizations pay informants to smuggle news out.

These sources, often cultivated by South Korean news agencies as “underground stringers,” risk their lives for little pay. But as many as half of their reports are false, according to a recent New York Times article by Choe Sang-hun:

The reports are sketchy at best, covering small pockets of North Korea society. Many prove wrong, contradict each other or remain unconfirmed. But they have also produced important scoops, like the currency devaluation and a recent outbreak of swine flu in North Korea. The mainstream media in South Korea now regularly quote these cottage-industry news services.

“Technology made this possible,” said Sohn Kwang-joo, the chief editor of Daily NK. “We infiltrate the wall of North Korea with cellphones.”

Over the past decade, the North’s border with China has grown more porous as famine drove many North Koreans out in search of food and an increasing traffic in goods — and information — developed. A new tribe of North Korean merchants negotiates smuggling deals with Chinese partners, using Chinese cellphones that pick up signals inside the North Korean border.

Worldfocus also spoke with Barbara Demick, Beijing bureau chief for the Los Angeles Times, about North Korean informants:

Regarding the underground news agencies, I’ve found that their reports are plausible, but a little exaggerated. For example, Good Friends’ NK Today was the first to report the famine in the 90s, but I think their claims of the death toll were overstated. These agencies have on occasion given vague reports of protests that I think have a kernel of truth — but are also exaggerated.

For example, I have never interviewed a defector who personally witnessed any kind of public protest in North Korea, although I think there have been localized incidents at the markets where vendors complained to market management or resisted arrest by the police. There have also been a fair number of incidents in which security officials were murdered.

On the ethics of the agencies paying informants, I think it would be unethical for them not to pay — in that these people are risking their lives. According to Choe Sang-hun’s recent piece [above], some of the informants are actually considered to be reporters who are working. But there is no doubt just the same that paying taints the quality of information. It creates an incentive for them to tell you what they think you would want to hear. We don’t pay for interviews with defectors, although when I interview them I am usually with a missionary who might be providing food and clothing.

Worldfocus put together a list of English-language news agencies and blogs that cover North Korea. These sites try to gather information from within North Korea:

• Daily NK was created by activists from the Network for North Korean Democracy and Human Rights. As the world’s first dedicated North Korean online news site, The Daily NK reports in real time.
• NK Today is produced by Good Friends USA to help the North Korean people from a humanistic point of view and describe the way North Korean people live as accurately as possible.
• North Korean Economy Watch is intended for business people, policy makers, academics and journalists but does not generally focus on human rights or the nuclear issue.

• DPRK Studies promotes awareness of North Korean security, social, political and historical issues. It is a portal to news, research, opinion, and organizations on North Korea.

• The Hankyoreh is a progressive newspaper decisively committed to journalistic freedom, democracy, peaceful coexistence and national reconciliation between South and North Korea.

• Kyodo News is distributed to almost all newspapers and radio-TV networks in Japan. Kyodo has a special English-language section dedicated to North Korea.

• Yonhap News Agency is based in Seoul and is the largest news-gathering network in Korea. There is a monthly magazine and a weekly e-newsletter dedicated to covering news from North Korea.

And these sites serve as North Korea’s official media, propagating pro-government news and information.

• Korean Central News Agency is the Pyongyang-based state-run news agency of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. News is transmitted to other countries in English, Russian, and Spanish.

• Korean Friendship Association was founded on November of the year 2000 with the purpose of building international ties with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

For more Worldfocus coverage of North Korea, visit our extended coverage page: Behind the Korean Curtain.

The magazine cover from January 16-22.

Aida Alami is a Moroccan freelance journalist who wrote for Le Journal Hebdomadaire until the magazine was closed.

Worldfocus interviewed her about why the Moroccan government shut down the independent news outlet last week.

Worldfocus: What happened to Le Journal Hebdomadaire?

Aida Alami: The police came Wednesday to take control of our newsroom and change the locks. By Thursday, we were completely finished. This came after we lost a trial and had to pay huge amounts of money to several people. Money we didn’t have.

Actually, we had already been dropped by 80% of our advertisers over the past few years. I heard that the king’s right-hand men got together last year with the advertisers and asked them to boycott us.

This wasn’t a surprise or a shock to me. I knew it would eventually happen. I haven’t been taking my laptop to work because I knew they would come, and I didn’t want them to take it!

We’re giving a press conference tomorrow to discuss the issue. I am not sure if they will let us go through with it — or interrupt it and kick everybody out.

Worldfocus: Will founder Aboubakr Jamai start a new magazine?

Alami: Aboubakr could start a new one. He did it once before, but I doubt there is money to do so today.

Worldfocus: What will you do now that you’re jobless?

Alami: It’s really discouraging. Everyone I know outside of Morocco has been emailing me, but here, no one cares. People I’ve known for 20 years haven’t even contacted me.

I am sure that if something similar had happened in France people would be camping outside of the president’s residence to protest. I don’t think they see it as something important. It’s hopeless.

I won’t be looking for work in Morocco. We were really the only independent news outlet here. I don’t see myself working anywhere else.

Worldfocus: Do most Moroccans value independent media?

Alami: In the Reporters Without Borders 2009 Press Freedom Index, Morocco ranks 127th.

The public doesn’t want to hear the truth about issues. The magazine had no friends. Even people who are high-income just saw us as anti-patriotic — too critical and undermining the country. Personally, I’m not political. I am just doing my job.

We drove people away for several reasons. Many people considered us elitist because of the language — French and too eloquent. As opposed to other magazines, we didn’t have covers with sex and stuff that sells. We were too serious and dealt with real issues that people were not necessarily interested in reading about.

I think that the public doesn’t really care. If they did, they’d be writing letters now. But they aren’t. My personal feeling is: why fight for people like that? The upper class has its own interests — to be close to power. Of course they’re not going to want to criticize our government or king.

Then, you have the small middle class who sympathize and are intellectual. Then there are the barely literate masses. Our readership was not that important. It was around 40,000.

However, our impact was a lot more important. Stories told in that magazine were told nowhere else.

Worldfocus: What was the trigger issue that motivated the government to close you down?

Alami: We often covered [Western Sahara indepedence activist] Aminatou Haidar, who was on hunger strike in Spain after having been kicked out of Morocco. They had taken her passport.

The entire country had extreme and very one-sided coverage and called her a spy, traitor, etc. During her hunger strike, we interviewed her every week and we even sent a reporter to Laayoune, her hometown, to interview her family. We were the only ones to give full coverage of the story. The coverage was terrific, and I am very proud of what we did.

Our editor, Aboubakr, wrote editorials arguing that Morocco was was making a huge mistake diplomatically. And that we [Moroccans] would end up looking like fools. TelQuel, our biggest competitor, never interviewed her.

I think that’s when the government decided, “We need to shut them up forever.”

As I said in my article published in the Huffington Post:

Many people have called us traitors because we were too critical. I think it’s the opposite, we are all people who loved their country enough to never sell out. We gave our readers the best we could and kept them informed like no other news team. The legacy left by Le Journal Hebdomadaire will stay with all of us no matter what, and the fight for freedom cannot stop here. I hope that reporters of the new generation will not compromise and will take on the fight Aboubakr Jamai started 13 years ago.

- Ben Piven

Mohammad watches the football game.

The news of the football match between Egypt and Algeria is dominating the front page headlines in both Egypt and Algeria Thursday. The rhetoric is high, and the war drum beat is getting louder.

The Algerian newspaper Al-Fajr devoted a portion of its web site page to the coverage of the match. The same was for true for Egypt’s leading newspaper Al Ahram, whose website greets viewers with a large colorful picture of Egyptian fans waving the red, white and black flag of their country at a stadium.

Meanwhile, the Algerian government is helping to shuttle at least a thousand of its citizens to watch the match in Angola.

For the Egyptians, this match is an opportunity to settle scores and regain its wounded national pride after its loss to Algeria in a playoff match in Khartoum, Sudan last November.

Fans of both teams were involved in violent clashes and accusations of mistreatment flew. Whether similiar passions will be ignited after this game remains to be seen.

- Mohammad Al-Kassim