2 May 2025 | Asia and Pacific, Burma, News
Blocking international media from reporting in Myanmar following the huge earthquake in March shows the military junta does not tolerate press freedom, experts say.
A huge 7.7 earthquake struck central Myanmar on 28 March, mostly impacting Mandalay and Sagaing, causing the death of thousands of civilians and the collapse of homes and buildings.
International media outlets flew from all over the world, hoping to get inside Myanmar to cover the disaster. Most had flown into Bangkok, Thailand, where the tremors of the earthquake hit, causing a 30-storey skyscraper to collapse with dozens of construction workers trapped underneath.
But the Myanmar military, officially the State Administration Council, claimed the situation was too dangerous for reporters, and also said accommodation options were limited for reporters entering the country.
Journalist struggles
Silvia Squizzato, an Italian journalist for Rai TV, says she was informed that entering Myanmar brought risks.
“As soon as I arrived in Thailand, I called the Italian embassy in Myanmar to ask if they could help me speed up the visa process, as it takes at least three months to get a journalist visa,” she said. “The Italian embassy repeatedly said it wasn’t possible; they also repeated that entering Myanmar with a tourist visa was too dangerous given the civil war in the country.”
Because of the rejection of a visa, Silvia and her outlet were unable to report on the ground.
“We couldn’t report on the earthquake up close, it was very frustrating. The military junta doesn’t want journalists in the country but neither do various rebel groups. I interviewed many refugees from Myanmar, and they all didn’t agree with this choice,” she added.
Arjan Oldenkamp, a cameraman for RTL Nederland, was another journalist who flew from Europe to cover the disaster. He had travelled all the way from Amsterdam to Bangkok, in the hope that he would get into Myanmar.
“[It was frustrating] for me as a cameraman,” he said. “I wanted only one thing: to get the news right, especially in a place like Myanmar. I would have liked to make a good report. We could not get to the core of the earthquake, it was very frustrating for me. After all, I had flown 13 hours only to be told that we could not get there.”
Damage done
At least 3,700 people have been killed in Myanmar because of the earthquake, with more than 5,000 injured. Recovery efforts are still ongoing, nearly a month after the quake struck.
The earthquake has caused damage to more than 50,000 buildings with nearly 200,000 people displaced, according to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
For those who have survived the disaster, the cost of rebuilding their homes is unmanageable, and many have been left without food, water or shelter. Bill Birtles, Indonesia correspondent for Australia Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), says if the military had allowed foreign media to enter, more aid and assistance could have been provided from the international community.
“We simply went to the embassy in Bangkok and were told to contact the Ministry of Information in Myanmar via generic email, and only after they ordered it could the embassy begin accepting and processing materials in Bangkok,” he said. “It was obvious there wasn’t a clear way to apply for the J [journalist] visa.
“I think, had the military government allowed international media crews to easily enter, they could have shown the devastation more easily to global audiences, which potentially could have increased the global aid response,” he added.
International aid
The quake did see the military make a rare plea to the international community for aid.
Teams from the UK, USA, China, Malaysia, New Zealand and South Korea pledged millions of dollars in emergency aid, while Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, India, Japan, Singapore and Russia sent rescue units to help with the emergency.
But relief efforts have been complicated, as Myanmar has been suffering from a brutal civil war since the military coup of 2021.
The Myanmar military has been in battle with resistance groups, including the National Unity Government of Myanmar, and ethnic armed organisations. Today, the junta has full control over less than a quarter of the country’s territory.
But any international aid that has come into Myanmar has had to go via major cities, including the capital Naypyidaw, Yangon and Mandalay. These cities are controlled by the Myanmar military, which has raised concerns about how the aid will be distributed to earthquake-affected areas, such as Sagaing, which is partially under the control of opposition groups.
Even though state-controlled media outlets from China and Russia, two of the Myanmar military’s few international allies, were provided some reporting access, international media reporting on the ground in Myanmar has been limited. The BBC managed to get a team into Myanmar via India, while Al Jazeera and Agence France-Presse (AFP) already had small teams in Myanmar when the earthquake struck.
Local criticism
Tin Tin Nyo, the managing director of Burma News International, said the military has restricted local media, too.
“The blocking of international media demonstrates that the military junta does not tolerate press freedom or free flow of information,” she said.
“They want to prevent the media from uncovering their mistreatment of the people and their negligence regarding public wellbeing and safety. This pattern will likely extend to various disasters and human rights violations occurring in Myanmar. They have clearly restricted not only local media but also international media from conducting ground reporting on the earthquake and its aftermath, which gravely impacted on the relief and recovery process,” she added.
The Independent Press Council of Myanmar (IPCM) has called the military’s decision to ban international media a “blatant violation of press freedom”.
“The exclusion of international media from reporting on the earthquake’s aftermath, as indicated by General Zaw Min Tun’s pronouncements, is a blatant violation of press freedom and a deliberate attempt to obscure the scale of the disaster. We categorically denounce this obstruction and insist upon the unfettered right of journalists, both domestic and international, to report on this crisis, for the sake of the affected population, the international community, and humanitarian aid organisations,” an IPCM statement read.
Myanmar press freedom environment
The denial of international media only adds to the dire environment for press freedom in the country.
For years, the Myanmar military has cracked down on independent media over the past four years with outlets having their media licences revoked. Hundreds of journalists have been arrested, dozens have been detained while others have been killed. Two freelance journalists were shot dead last year during a military raid. Access to information in the country remains difficult, as journalists continue to be targeted by the military authorities.
As part of that crackdown, the junta has used other tools to prevent information flow into the country.
In January, the military enacted a new cybersecurity law in Myanmar that banned the use of virtual private networks (VPNs). Myanmar also had the most internet shutdowns across the world in 2024, according to a report released earlier this year by digital rights group Access Now. It revealed that most of the 85 shutdowns came at the hands of the military authorities.
19 Dec 2024 | News, Newsletters
Hello, readers. This will be our final newsletter before Index wraps up for the holiday season. It’s been quite the year for freedom of expression, and whilst it’s not easy to summarise in one email, we’ve had a go. We’ve seen severe violations by repressive governments – but we’ve also seen remarkable acts of defiance by political activists, journalists and protesters.
These acts of defiance leave room for hope. In Russia, the year started with the suspicious death of Alexei Navalny whilst in detention, arguably Vladimir Putin’s most vocal critic (you can read an obituary by journalist John Sweeney here). But it was then punctuated with the release of opposition leader Vladimir Kara-Murza in a prisoner swap in August, after relentless campaigning led by his wife, Evgenia, who we ultimately awarded in this year’s Freedom of Expression Awards.
Another huge win for international protest was the release of Iranian political activist Toomaj Salehi in December, following his death sentence being overturned in June. Of course, there are many activists who remain behind bars and Index will continue to campaign for their release. Dozens of pro-democracy campaigners in Hong Kong – the Hong Kong 47 – were given harsh prison sentences of between four and 10 years in November, whilst prominent Chinese #MeToo activist (and previous Index award winner) Sophia Huang Xueqin was sentenced to five years in June. British-Egyptian political activist Alaa Abd el-Fattah was also denied freedom, even after serving his five-year jail term.
Throughout the year, we’ve seen media workers and independent reporting targeted in the most pernicious ways, including through targeted murder, particularly in war zones such as Gaza. Palestine has now become the most dangerous place to be a journalist, and you can read Al Jazeera English journalist Youmna El Sayed’s first-hand account on the risks of covering the conflict here. Meanwhile, media workers in Sudan face similar threats and persecution with seldom international attention, in what has been described as the “forgotten war”.
Alongside the brave pursuits of journalists, regular citizens have also stood up to their governments – with varying degrees of success. Alleged fraudulent elections in Georgia, Mozambique and Venezuela have caused the public to take to the streets in defiance of corruption. Whilst peaceful protests have resulted in violent crackdowns, there is cause for hope: a citizen-led democratic activism project in Venezuela was used to capture accurate voting tallies, and could prove to be a blueprint for fighting election fraud globally in the future, reported Martin Bright. And who could forget South Korea’s “no worries if not!” moment – when president Yoon Suk Yeol’s attempt at enforcing martial law was shut down within six hours thanks to mass assembly.
As we approach 2025, an uncertain future awaits. Repressive laws in Afghanistan have caused it to become the world’s most silenced nation, particularly for women, who under terrifying Taliban morality laws can no longer speak in public. Next year, will the international community stand up for women in the country and rally against what human rights groups are calling “gender apartheid”?
In the USA, a second Trump presidency could also bring with it a chilling impact on free expression, particularly for minority groups. You can read Emma Briant’s fascinating piece on the potential effect on university free thought in the “Land of Liberty” here. Meanwhile, the overthrowing of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s repressive regime means thousands of political dissidents have been liberated from the dictator’s inhumane prisons – but what could a future rebel-run regime really mean for the country’s freedoms?
We’ll be back in January. In the meantime, do make sure you read our latest magazine issue, Unsung Heroes: How musicians are raising their voices against oppression. If you’d like to subscribe, we have a special offer running until 3 January – you can enjoy 30% off an annual digital subscription by using the discount code Winter24 at checkout here, meaning it costs just £12.60.
Wishing you all a restful break, and hopefully a brighter 2025.
6 Dec 2024 | Georgia, Iran, News, Newsletters, South Korea, United Kingdom
Protests have the power to rally people, express objection to political decisions, and in the most successful cases, elicit change. They are a fundamental form of self expression, and a crucial mechanism of any democracy. This week, we saw South Koreans take to the streets to protest President Yoon Suk Yeol’s shock move to impose martial law, which temporarily placed the military in charge and suspended many civilian rights, including the right to protest.
The move was immediately declared illegal and unconstitutional. The leader of the country’s largest opposition party was able to rally MPs to vote down the declaration in parliament, and ordinary citizens to protest against it, despite the ruling that they couldn’t. Within 24 hours, Yeol’s attempt was toppled and he now faces impeachment charges.
South Korea’s bizarre turn of events shows the potential effectiveness of collective action against authoritarianism. The power of persistent campaigning was also brought to light in Iran this week, when the jailed rapper and activist Toomaj Salehi (a former winner in the arts category of Index’s Freedom of Expression Awards) was released from prison. He had previously been sentenced to death (later overturned) for voicing support for anti-government protests, including the Woman, Life, Freedom movement in 2022. Tireless international protest from campaign groups – jointly led by Index, the Human Rights Foundation and Doughty Street Chambers – undoubtedly put pressure on Iranian authorities to permit his release.
But of course, attempts to congregate against injustice are not always successful, or accepted. In Georgia this week, where we have seen a degradation of democracy under the Georgian Dream party, there was a horrendous crackdown on peaceful protesters.
Since the country’s contested election in October, where the party secured a fourth term, citizens have come out in droves and have been met with state violence, including being physically assaulted, and attacked with water cannon and tear gas. You can read more about the steady decline towards autocracy in Georgia in this piece by Index CEO Jemimah Steinfeld, who visited Tbilisi in October.
This response is just one example of how peaceful protest is being eroded, despite it being protected as a human right under international law. We’re seeing examples of this all over the world. Last month, Clemence Manyukwe reported for Index on how anti-government protesters in Mozambique were injured and even killed following the country’s disputed presidential election.
And even when violence isn’t used, legal mechanisms can be utilised to undermine people’s right to show dissent. On our own shores, the previous government introduced the Public Order Act, which has substantially restricted people’s ability to protest freely, and has made it easier to criminalise protesters by lowering the threshold at which police can arrest them. The result has been hundreds of activists being arrested and prosecuted, including the climate activist Greta Thunberg.
Earlier this year, the High Court found that the former home secretary Suella Braverman had acted unlawfully in introducing this legislation, but the Home Office appealed the ruling. The new Labour government has continued the appeal, which has spurred criticism from human rights organisations. Katy Watts, lawyer at Liberty, said: “For the countless people currently in the over-stretched criminal justice system because of these unlawful regulations, we must see the law quashed and the government respecting our fundamental right to protest.”
Protest movements are not always against governments. Also in the UK this week, we saw a large media workers’ strike from staff at The Guardian and The Observer over the sale of the The Observer to Tortoise Media, an acquisition which has proved controversial.
Whilst the sale of a business does not, on its own, represent a risk to free expression, concerns have been raised over whether there are safeguards in place to protect the newspaper’s editorial independence, as one of the few remaining liberal news outlets in the UK. There have also been concerns over the ability of company staff to speak out publicly against the deal without fear of punishment or recrimination, with some employees reporting being warned against voicing their opinions freely.
Index was one of many signatories of a letter addressed to The Scott Trust – which owns the Guardian Media Group – and Tortoise raising concerns about the risks to free expression from the mechanisms of the sale. Despite the 48-hour strike, the sale went ahead this morning, indicating that protest is not always an effective mechanism for change.
But whilst it may not always result in the desired outcome, it sends a message – whether to governments or private businesses – about individuals’ rights to express their disapproval or outrage. The ability to do so without fear of criminal reprisal or violence is a fundamental right and must be protected at all costs.
