2 May 2025 | Asia and Pacific, Burma, News and features
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.
25 Feb 2025 | Asia and Pacific, Australia, News and features
Petrina Harley likens direct action to giving birth.
“My body knew it had a job to do, so I got on and focused on my inner strength,” the 53-year-old mother of two told Index via phone from Perth. “I find it really empowering.”
Harley is a climate activist of eight years facing trial in June for repeatedly blocking entry to Australia’s biggest gas hub to be built in a decade, a AU$16.5 billion ($10.35 billion) project in the Pilbara on the Burrup Peninsula of Western Australia (WA) by sector giant Woodside.
It may come as a surprise to some, but not to Harley, that new research from the University of Bristol released in December showed that Australia is now the world’s top country for arresting climate and environmental protesters.
“I’ve been arrested four times now,” said Harley. Alarmingly, arrest is now a common response in 20% of all climate and environmental protests in Australia, with the international average being 6.3%.
This is also part of a broader crackdown in the country, where new measures in the state of Victoria purportedly aimed at tackling recent cases of anti-Semitism could be used to target climate protesters, human rights lawyers have now warned.
There’s particular concern that a potential ban on “lock on” devices such as glue, chains or locks, could be used to take aim at environmental campaigners. Similar laws have been announced in New South Wales (NSW).
“The arrests [in Australia] are one dimension of criminalisation,” said Oscar Berglund, senior lecturer in International Public and Social Policy in the School for Policy Studies at the University of Bristol.
“There have also been multiple new anti-protest laws passed. What we are seeing currently is an intensifying criminalisation of protest in both democratic countries and less democratic countries.”
Harley, who began protesting after she had children, said that she had tried “everything under the sun” including running for the Senate in the lower house with the Socialist Alliance party, holding weekly stalls in town and gathering petitions, before she took part in two blockades in WA.
In the first one, in November 2021, Harley and another Scarborough Gas Action Alliance activist, Elizabeth Burrow, used a caravan to obstruct entry to the Woodside project. The activists bonded their arms into a concrete drum inside the vehicle. Harley was “locked on” for 16 hours. When she refused to move, she was arrested in the caravan and after being taken to hospital for injuries locked up overnight and charged. Harley said it was “complete overreach” by police.
The pair pleaded not guilty and used an emergency defence – normally reserved for cases like murder – arguing that the activities of Woodside are directly putting lives at risk. In 2023 they were found guilty by a magistrate’s court in Karratha in the Pilbara region of failing to obey an order given by an officer, obstructing public officers, and unreasonably obstructing or preventing the free passage on a path or carriageway.
They received a six-month community-based order, with a requirement to complete 100 hours of community service and were also handed a $600 fine each. Police initially sought more than $33,000 in compensation from the activists for removing them from the caravan, but this application was later dismissed.
Last July, Harley and another activist, Emma, a high school student, used a car and a boat to block the only access road to the same project, in a bid to stop its operations. Harley was “locked on” for 12 hours. She is now facing three obstruction charges over this.
At her trial in Perth in June, she will again plead not guilty using the extraordinary emergency defence.
“I’m very excited, I’ve got a really ethical lawyer who’s keen to test the case because it would be a precedent,” Harley said. “People have tried it before, but no one’s actually won. I’ve got some very high-profile witnesses to testify.”
David Mejia-Canales is a Sydney-based senior human rights lawyer at Australian group Human Rights Law Centre (HRLC). He said that an analysis of two decades’ worth of anti-protest legislation in Australia from 2003 onwards found that out of 49 pieces of legislation introduced, most target environmental protesters in the streets, at mines or logging sites. But laws are broad and vague despite peaceful protest being protected under international law.
“In Australia you just have to look out the window to notice that the climate crisis is getting worse and the thing that our governments are appearing to do is to jail climate protesters instead of actually doing anything that is meaningful and quick and long lasting about this,” said Mejia-Canales.
He said HRLC wasn’t aware of any activists in Australia who have been acquitted on an emergency defence. But framing the necessity defence (breaking the law to prevent greater harm) as an “extraordinary emergency defence” could allow protesters to use the growing acceptance of climate change as an emergency that requires urgent attention, he said.
However, just last week a climate activist in Melbourne was told that he cannot rely on evidence from climate experts following charges relating to an Extinction Rebellion protest.
Mejia-Canales said that Australia urgently needs a Human Rights Act, which could be crucial for climate activists, reinforcing arguments that their actions seek to uphold fundamental rights rather than merely disrupt public order.
A WA government spokesperson told Index: “Everyone is entitled to protest peacefully in WA, however police will respond to violent or threatening behaviour.”
Index approached the minister for climate change and energy for comment, but did not receive a reply.
Woodside said that it supported respectful debate. But it said acts intended to threaten, harm, intimidate or disrupt employees, their families or any other member of the community going about their daily lives “should be met with the full force of the law”.
Read more: UK journalists fall victim to new police tactics
11 Oct 2024 | Brazil, Israel, Mexico, News and features, Newsletters, Palestine, United States
Hello, readers. This is Sarah Dawood here, the new editor of Index on Censorship. Every week, we bring the most pertinent global free speech stories to your inbox.
This week, headlines have been dominated by the ongoing devastation of the war in the Middle East, where the death toll is now more than 42,000 in Gaza, and more than 2,100 in Lebanon. Monday also marked a painful milestone for Israelis and Jewish people everywhere, as the first anniversary of Hamas’s attacks, which killed 1,200 people. You can read Jerusalem correspondent Ben Lynfield’s forensic analysis on the region’s risks to journalists and press freedom below.
Attention has also been on the destructive Hurricane Milton in Florida, which has killed at least 16 people. The climate event has resulted in human tragedy, physical damage and the distortion of truth, with false information and AI-generated images accumulating millions of views on social media, including a fabricated flooding of Disney World in Orlando. Such imagery has been seized upon by hostile states, far-right groups, and even US politicians to advance their own aims: Russian state-owned news agency RIA Novosti reposted the fake Disney World photos to its Telegram channel, whilst Republican members of Congress have proclaimed conspiracy theories of government-led “storm manufacturing”. This emphasises how crises can be manipulated and monopolised to stir up division.
But while disinformation can undermine democracy, so too can information blockades. This brings us to some important stories coming out of Latin America. In Brazil, the social media platform X is now back online after a shutdown in September. The platform was banned by a top judge during the country’s presidential election campaign, in an attempt to prevent the spread of misinformation. But as Mateus Netzel, the executive director of Brazil-based digital news platform Poder360 told Reuters, social media bans not only restrict public access to information, but can undermine journalists’ ability to gather and report on news. Elon Musk himself was using X to post about the development of the ban, but this was inaccessible to Brazilian journalists. “In theory, there are journalists and outlets who do not have access to that right now and this is a very important restriction because they need to report on this issue and they will have to rely on indirect sources,” said Netzel.
We also heard frightening news from Mexico, where a local politician was murdered and beheaded just days after being sworn in as city mayor of Chilpancingo. Whilst we don’t yet know the reason that Alejandro Arcos Catalán was killed, his murder is yet another example of journalists, politicians, and other public figures being routinely targeted by criminal gangs. Bar active war zones, Mexico has consistently been the most dangerous country in the world for journalists, topping Reporters Without Borders’ list in 2022.
Meanwhile, in El Salvador, climate activists are being silenced through false imprisonment. Five protesters, who fronted a 13-year grassroots campaign to ban metal mining due to its devastating environmental impacts are now facing life in prison for the alleged killing of an army informant in 1989. The charge has been condemned by the UN and international lawyers as baseless and politically motivated, and echoes heavy-handed prison sentences being handed to climate protesters globally, including in democratic countries. As Index’s Mackenzie Argent reported last month, human rights lawyers have called out the UK’s hypocrisy in claiming egalitarianism whilst disproportionately punishing environmental activists, pointing specifically to the sentencing of Just Stop Oil’s Roger Hallam to five years in prison in July. These two stories, although taking place 5,000 miles away from each other, underline how climate defenders are currently on the front line of attempts to be silenced.
26 Sep 2024 | Europe and Central Asia, News and features, Spotlight, United Kingdom
On Monday 16 September, the United States imposed financial sanctions and visa restrictions on Georgians who they believed to be involved with violent crackdowns on peaceful protests that had occurred in the country’s capital Tbilisi in the spring. The protests were sparked in resistance to the passing of a “foreign agents law”, which shares similarities with an existing law in Russia – raising concerns that the Georgian government is aligning more closely with the Kremlin.
These demonstrations were led by young adults. University students organised and turned out in their thousands, and the majority of protesters on the streets were members of Gen Z. It is commonplace for young people to be vocal about what they believe in, but despite the US supporting the struggle of the youth against their government in Georgia, when it comes to home soil, their commitment to free speech isn’t so steadfast. The US drew condemnation from UN human rights experts regarding the aggressive and harsh measures used by authorities against pro-Palestine protesters on US university campuses – many peaceful demonstrations were met with surveillance and arrests across the country. Further measures are being taken to prevent protests ahead of the 2024/25 academic year, and these have been met with disdain from the American Association of University Professors in a statement made last month.
The USA is far from alone when it comes to recent crackdowns on the right to protest. As Index has previously covered, there have been multiple arrests at both climate protests and pro-Palestine protests in the UK in recent years, and the Conservative government led by Rishi Sunak introduced the much criticised Policing, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, the Public Order Act 2023, and Serious Disruption Prevention Orders, all of which significantly inhibit people’s right to protest. This crushing of demonstrations even breached the realms of legality when Suella Braverman was ruled to have passed unlawful anti-protest legislation in 2023. In recent times, the sheer scale of punishment for non-violent protesters in the UK has been brought into the public eye with the sentencing in July of Roger Hallam of Just Stop Oil (JSO) to five years imprisonment, and four other JSO members to four years, for coordinating protests on the M25.
Lotte Leicht, a Danish human rights lawyer who holds the position of advocacy director at Climate Rights International – a monitoring and advocacy organisation that recently put out a statement outlining hypocrisy from western governments regarding climate protests – spoke to Index on this issue, and she believes that the UK is the worst offender.
“The crackdown, and particularly the use of law to sentence non-violent disruption by climate protesters in the UK has stood out as the most severe and most extraordinary measure [from any country]. And one thing that’s very disappointing from our point of view is not to see the new Labour government tackling these draconian laws from the previous government, and taking steps to revoke them,” Leicht said.
She added: “The prevention of UK activists from explaining their motivations for their actions in court, and judges actually preventing them from doing so… As a lawyer, I would say this prevents people from having a fair trial.”
This crackdown on protests has become prevalent in many democracies within ‘the Global North’ in recent years, and examples are not hard to come by. On 11 September, thousands of anti-war protesters in Melbourne, Australia gathered outside a weapons expo, protesting the government’s stance on arms, and the use of such weapons in Gaza. The protests quickly became the subject of great scrutiny when there were violent clashes between Melbourne police and demonstrators, with police allegedly using excessive “riot-type” force, resulting in multiple injuries.
In Germany, pro-Palestine protests have also repeatedly been met with harsh measures, such as bans. The country’s history of anti-Semitism has impacted its attitude towards protests and events that are critical of Israel, causing police to be more heavy handed than in other democracies.
Leicht, who is also the council chairwoman at the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), a nonprofit dedicated to enforcing civil and human rights globally, told Index that this increasing anti-protest action from western democracies sets a very worrying precedent.
“This represents a massive deployment of double standards. Because these are the same governments that rightfully stand up for freedom of expression, association and assembly in different corners of the world when authoritarian governments are cracking down horrifically on dissent in their countries,” she said.
“These countries are usually there to say ‘Oh, that’s not good’, and we want them to do that! But by not practising what they preach and undermining these principles at home, they will lose that credibility. In a way, they will provide a green light to authoritarian governments to do the exact same for those that they don’t like. I mean, why not?”
Leicht does, however, believe that a continued struggle against these litigations will not be in vain.
“Protests in the past have also been disruptive, annoying and irritating for those in power — look at the Suffragettes. Now, is that something that we today would say ‘That’s just annoying and irritating’? Many felt so at the time. They were disruptive, they were irritating, they were strong, they were principled – and they were successful. And I think history will tell the same story about courageous climate protesters,” she said.
It is clear that countries positioning themselves as “champions of democracy” must truly allow freedom of expression within their own borders, especially when they set the tone globally. If they continue to infringe upon the rights of people to demonstrate their beliefs and advocate publicly for change, then the future will be silent.
