Trading standards

As Iran journeys back from isolation, Asian nations stand ready to engage

When Iran was welcomed cautiously back into the international fold in January, some were expecting a flood of suitors in front of Tehran’s door, while others thought the path back from exile might be a bit stop-start.

And while there have been business deals with some Western nations, such as France signing off an order for Airbus aircraft, it has been Asian nations that have been best-placed to improve, restore and underline trade agreements and mutual policies between themselves and the Islamic Republic.

Today, Tehran confirmed it had seen a 13% increase in oil exports to Asia, off the back of its energy market unshackling.

India and South Korea led the way in Iranian imports, picking up the slack after drops in crude purchases for China and Japan.

But even before international sanctions were relaxed earlier in the year, those four Asian countries mentioned above maintained their oil imports from Iran.

India, most of all, is brimming with infrastructure companies licking their lips at the chance to get involved in the re-opening Iran.

Its tech firms and place as the world’s biggest open-market democracy give it a unique position in the region.

And it has just announced annual growth for 2015/16 of 7.6%, outstripping the other so-called BRIC nations of Brazil, China and Russia and underlining its growing economic strength.

So with continued upward GDP expansion and the unbuttoning of business regulation in India, coupled with a change of policy towards Iran, has seen the 2014 Narendra Modi administration embed itself firmly with an old trading partner that is now seen by others in the world in a fresh light.

The times they are a-changin’

So when policies change or when governments are voted out and replaced, it is not just that specific country which sees the results internally. A new president or a lessening of sanctions can breathe new life into dusty agreements or encourage fresh engagement from different actors pursuing new angles.

Across the other side of the Pacific Ocean, the ongoing fade of the ‘pink left’ governments in Latin America has sparked possible new directions when it comes to trade.

The nascent, business-friendly presidential administration of Mauricio Macri in Argentina has been making tentative steps as an observer within the Pacific Alliance – a group of four Latin nations that is based on free-trade.

Argentina may not be a Pacific Rim country but it shows the fluidity of blocs and the alternating  popularity of regional partnerships when it comes to a change of government.

Under previous leader Cristina Fernández, protectionism was the bedrock for Argentinian trade and she called as her acolytes fellow leftists in Brazil, Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia.

Now the new leader wants to move his country in his preferred direction and that seems to be by nudging up to Mexico, Colombia, Peru and Chile’s integrated club.


Corbynmanía – a Latin flavour to Labour

Argentina calls the radical new leader of the UK opposition “one of ours”

The rapid rise of Jeremy Corbyn and his leftist acolytes in the British Labour Party has been met with mixed responses in the UK but a thumbs-up in Latin America.

For the governing Conservatives, there was early gloating over a man deemed originally to be ‘un-electable’ but this has been replaced by worried, cautionary rhetoric.

In the Labour ranks, there has been elation, bemusement, uncertainty and angst.

Some of the loudest cheers of approval have come from thousands of miles away.

For Argentina, the election of Jeremy Corbyn is a decisive and positive move in support of a man whose politics resonate deeply with many people across the country and, indeed, throughout Latin America.

Corbyn has pursued justice for the victims of the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile.

He has led a UK parliamentary mission to the leftist Bolivia of Evo Morales.

He is blood brother to trade unions and a thorn in the side of ‘savage capitalists’.

He supports debt renegotiation and nuclear disarmament.

And the Latin links do not just exist on a political level: his second wife was Chilean and his current partner is from Mexico.

Finally, just this afternoon, on Tuesday 15 September, while he was addressing the British Trades Union Congress, he stood up for the rights of organised workers in Colombia, a notable right-leaning and Washington-minded Latin state.

Most tellingly for Buenos Aires, he is an anti-imperialist pacifist, in the true oratorical mould of Hugo Chávez, Evo Morales or Cristina Fernández and he opposed the 1982 Falklands War, arguing for a peaceful resolution to the dispute.

The current British government is intransigent.

It says it believes in the Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination as underlined by their decision to maintain their status as a British Overseas Territory (and thus British nationality) in a 2013 referendum.

Case closed.

Or maybe not?

With the election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader, Buenos Aires sees it as very much open.

In an interview with the Pagina 12 newspaper on 14 September, the Argentinian ambassador to the United Kingdom, Alicia Castro, said she feels “joy, a great satisfaction” after Corbyn’s victory in the leadership contest.

She lauded his “emphatic show of solidarity with Argentina”, even going on to claim that “he is one of ours”.

Corbyn certainly has not followed the majority of his compatriots on the Falklands/Malvinas issue.

He is a member of the European Pro-Dialogue pressure group and in March this year questioned the increase in military spending in the Falklands by the UK government. (This blog reported on that at the time.)

In her interview, the ambassador went on: “his leadership can decisively guide British public opinion in favour of dialogue between the two governments”.

The swelling wave of socialist pride and power carrying Mr Corbyn at the moment certainly seems to have a momentum to it that comes from leftist Latin seas far from these shores.

Crude behaviour

A new discovery of oil off the Falkland Islands hardens Argentinian resolve 

The price of crude has been on a substantial slide since last summer, losing more than half of its value since June 2014. Oil firms have had to pull back on expansion plans and slash job projections. Oil-dependent economies, such as Venezuela, have been ravaged by the crash of the black stuff.

But such is the aura around oil that it still has the power for that instant spark, no matter how difficult the extraction or how poor the oil and no matter that there may be more dampening announcements to come after the fanfare has died down.

(A case in point for this final example would be the recent row-back from the claim that up to 100bn barrels of oil could be sitting near Gatwick Airport to the south of London.)

At the start of this month, three small UK oil firms revealed a find at their ‘Zebedee’ well in the North Falklands Basin. Although there was a muted response as far as shares go, and despite the current problems for oil companies caused by the low price of the stuff, Buenos Aires bristled when news came through.

The mythical draw of black gold provokes wide-eyed excitement when discoveries of fields are announced. It does seem that part of the Argentinian reaction follows this line of thought. The area around the archipelago has been charted by prospective drillers regularly over recent years, but this latest British find has stoked the possibility of a new industry in the South Atlantic.

Buenos Aires seems to have less of a problem with the fishing carried out by Falkland Island fleets but this exploration and exploitation of oil has enraged the Casa Rosada.

The Argentinian government sees the Islas Malvinas as constituent parts of the South American nation. To this end, any investigation or development of natural resources around the islands is seen as an illicit territorial encroachment.

On an international diplomatic level, it disagrees that the exploration of natural resources should be taking place where sovereignty is disputed. But is there a dispute when only one party feels wronged?

There may be no feasible extraction of workable crude for many years to come, but this announcement still feels like a slap in the face for the fumbling Argentinian economy.

Plummeting opinion polls for outgoing president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner could be roused by an oil rush. But she can only look out east over the ocean uneasily, and has resolved to support legal action against the companies involved.

The fate of the islands has also been mentioned in the UK general election campaign, with the governing Conservative party committing in its manifesto to “uphold the democratic rights of the people of Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands to remain British, for as long as that is their wish.”

And late last month the British defence secretary said the UK government would invest £180m over the next ten years on improving and expanding the military presence in the islands.

The Falkland Islanders are sure to be feeling chipper and can picture an expansion of their own economy with all the industry and income that would accompany the development of the new finds, knowing that the mother country is still, for now, standing behind them.

The Argentinians believe the bolstering of soldier numbers by the British is another illegitimate move in the martial arena to protect unlawful actions in the civilian sector.

While the fog of diplomatic mistrust and the anxiety around military maneouvres shroud the windy shores of Tierra del Fuego and Stanley, there is to be no sharing of resources in those deep southern waves.


‘The Legacy of Hugo Chávez’

On Wednesday 30 April, a conference was held by Canning House, the UK-Iberia/Latin America cultural institute, to discuss the domestic, regional and international legacies of Hugo Chávez, the former Venezuelan president.

The first thing to say was that I was one of several people who arrived late at the talks because the UK capital was being disrupted that morning as a result of a strike by London Underground workers.

After a prolonged journey to the venue, I crept into the lecture theatre to hear Pedro A. Palma lambasting an economic legacy that he clearly thought was in tatters. Dr Palma, a Venezuelan economist who was a founding partner of consulting firm MetroEconómica, railed against “rampant inflation…an unsustainable situation”, saying that a “180-degree turn” was needed to try to save Venezuela. He referenced several slides showing different economic data and finished by outlining his fears that if action were not taken, there would be what he labelled “the materialisation of an exchange-rate tsunami”.

Someone who disagreed with Dr Palma was the next speaker, Arturo Sarmiento, the president of Telecaribe, a television station. He argued that 13 years of chavismo had led to political stability in Venezuela, and that despite his many critics, ‘El Comandante’ continued to win elections. He admitted that that opposition had been “castrated and suffocated” in many ways but was met by derisive cries from some members of the audience when he called the country’s electoral system “magnificent”. He said that the private sector must start to look at events in Venezuela in a different light and he ended with another statement that drew sarcastic chuckles from a few of those in the room. Mr Sarmiento believed that the arrival of Hugo Chavez into Venezuelan politics “helped avoid what could have been an even bigger social explosion than the French or Russian revolutions”.

Mr Sarmiento was well placed to comment on the media situation, and his response to a question about freedom of the press in Venezuela was firm. He said he had never experienced any censorship regarding any of his media ventures, going on to say that the press had a healthy role to play and that journalists were able to report freely in the country.

L-R: John Hughes, Canning House Chairman; Julia Buxton, Comparative Politics professor; Arturo Sarmiento, President of Telecaribe; Pedro A. Palma, Economist

L-R: John Hughes, Canning House Chairman; Julia Buxton, Comparative Politics professor; Arturo Sarmiento, President of Telecaribe; Pedro A. Palma, Economist

Julia Buxton, a professor of comparative politics at the School of Public Policy, had given her introductory speech while I was enjoying the gridlock in Piccadilly Circus but I got a taste of her position on the domestic legacy when she answered a question about the record high levels of crime. She agreed that Venezuela was “unique in its levels of criminal violence” but noted that, although crime had risen, poverty had fallen. Ms Buxton called for a “national dialogue and a consensus” on disarmament, lamenting the high numbers of light weapons and small arms in circuit and what she called “the glorification of violence”.

Next up were Dick Wilkinson, a former UK ambassador to Venezuela and to Cuba, and Alicia Castro, the Argentinian ambassador to the UK and former ambassador to Venezuela; they discussed Chávez’s regional legacy. For Mr Wilkinson, who met ‘El Comandante’ several times, the ‘participatory, not representative’ idea of democracy that Mr Chávez introduced was a refreshing method of engaging the masses. The Briton argued that there were four main groups into which you could fit Venezuela’s neighbours when it came to how they felt towards the former president:

1) Friends and supporters: Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Caribbean nations

2) Who Chávez thought sold themselves to the USA: Colombia and Mexico

3) Suspicious towards his politics: Chile

4) Not hostile but viewed him with a certain condescension: Argentina and Brazil

L-R: Roger Cartwright, Canning House trustee; Alicia Castro, Argentinian ambassador to UK; Dick Wilkinson, former UK ambassador to Venezuela

L-R: Roger Cartwright, Canning House trustee; Alicia Castro, Argentinian ambassador to UK; Dick Wilkinson, former UK ambassador to Venezuela

Ms Castro spoke after Mr Wilkinson and she was in a combative mood. She denied that her country was condescending towards Caracas and opened her speech by saying “Venezuela is under an international media attack”. She thought that Chávez “gave Latin Americans hope of a better world”. There had been an enthusiasm across the region regarding the “challenge that Hugo Chávez presented to the neo-liberal agenda”, she stated and she went on to praise the “social revolution through democracy” that the socialist leader promoted.

In the questions that followed their discourses, the tension rose in the room as Ms Castro blithely swatted away some of the issues raised with short, snappy answers. She replied to a question from a Venezuelan about the issue of Caracas sheltering members of Colombia’s FARC rebels by asking how old the person posing the question was, intimating he was too young to know much about such matters. She was also robust in answering my question about how Hugo Chávez’s legacy could guide and shape the future of Mercosur, (which Venezuela joined in 2012), when set against the rising Pacific Alliance free-trade bloc. Ms Castro responded by focusing more on wanting to know why “British journalists” were fascinated by the issue of the Pacific Alliance, rather than the arguable politicisation of Mercosur and how the former Venezuelan leader’s policies would or would not guide Mercosur.

She closed with the above statement, a stance that provoked a lot of reaction online, with users both supporting her position and criticising her as a “true Peronist”.

(The third panel saw Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London from 2000-2008 and Diego Arria, a Venezuelan politician, discuss the international legacy of Hugo Chávez – this blog did not cover this final discussion)

Trading complaints

Argentina has been irritating a lot of countries with its global commerce policies

On Monday 3 September Argentina lodged a complaint against the US with the World Trade Organisation. This is the latest of a long line of recent grievances either filed by or against Buenos Aires. The newest protest came from the South Americans who claim that US laws are blocking the imports of lemons from the north-west of the country. Quite a few states have been weighing in at the WTO with Argentinian problems of their own for a while now. Here is a rough outline of what has been going on:

April: Argentinian government takes control of oil firm YPF from Spanish parent company Repsol

May: European Union files WTO complaint against Argentina over import licensing rules

June: Argentina pulls out of car trade pact with Mexico

August 21: US and Japan file WTO complaints against Argentina over import licensing rules

August 27: Mexico files WTO complaint against Argentina over protectionism claims

August 30: Argentina files WTO complaint over US beef and lemons

September 3: Argentina files WTO complaint against US over import of lemons

There has been a lot of activity involving the government of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner at the WTO headquarters in Geneva: more than 20 WTO members have objected against Argentinian trade laws which have taken a more protectionist direction in the recent months of la presidenta‘s second administration.

Regarding the latest complaint in these tit-for-tat international commercial arguments, the World Trade Organisation states on its website that:

“Argentina claims that the prohibition of imports of lemons to the US for the last 11 years, and other restrictive measures, lack scientific justification. Argentina also claims that the measures of the United States appear to cancel or impair the benefits for Argentina derived, directly or indirectly, from the relevant WTO Agreements”

As soon as a WTO complaint is lodged the two opposing sides have 60 days in which to settle the dispute through bilateral talks. If these fail or if the deadline is not met then the WTO is usually called upon to adjudicate on the argument.

It is certainly true that the Latin American nation has been increasing its trade surplus in the past few years as its export market grows, with its soybeans, beef and motor parts the most popular items on foreigners’ shopping lists. However, where the countries listed above have a problem is over trying to export goods back into Argentina.

Brussels, Mexico City, Tokyo and Washington have all got hot under the collar over the South Americans’ import licence applications which they claim are subject to lengthy and illegitimate delays. What really gets their goat is that Argentinian companies normally do not face similar bureaucracy when they are carting cereals and chemicals off to their main buyers, which include most of the regional neighbours along with their own nations. Cecilia Nahón, the Argentinian ambassador to the WTO, has defended her government’s policies, saying that Buenos Aires cannot be accused of restricting imports when the national intake of foreign goods rose by 31% last year.

Many of these ‘Somebody v Argentina’ disagreements have the look of global points-scoring about them, with one side claiming that their hand was forced by their opponent’s move. Where they are all the same is that Cristina Fernández de Kirchner’s abrasively defensive style of government seems to be rubbing many nations up the wrong way. She may pass the others’ grumbling off as sour grapes or as envy at her soaring positive trade balances, but in order for her to achieve record surpluses she has to have easy import licensing rules available to her nation’s firms.

Argentina must now come clean about the accusations levelled against its own import licences for other countries’ companies and the way their exporters’ applications are handled.

Time to retake the Latin exam

The British government shows some determination to address its lack of commitment to Latin America

They say Latin is a dead language. Sometimes it seems that many in different British governments have believed Latin America is dead too. The visit of the British Minister for Latin America to Bolivia from 26-27 July went almost unnoticed in the UK press. The BBC had one online page of coverage of the trip; a YouTube video Jeremy Browne, the Liberal Democrat MP with responsibility for Latin America, put online had only been viewed 42 times by the time this blog was published.

In November, the Foreign Secretary made this speech about the relationship between the UK and Latin America. He was right that Britons have played a role in forging Brazilian and Uruguayan independence and being the first European nation to recognise Mexico. Welshmen took football to Argentina. Cornishmen helped develop the Mexican silver mines.

But it seems that there has been an invisible colonial barrier barring the UK from closer relations with the region; a whispered admission that this was Spain and Portugal’s domain. Africa and the sub-continent have received far greater attention from the UK, mainly owing to the colonial links. Millions across India, Pakistan and sub-Saharan Africa speak English. Charities and aid workers regularly channel their efforts (rightfully) on the many social, political and medical needs of these nations but Latin America also needs support. And the UK can help the region in a different way.

It need not abandon Uganda or Bangladesh but the old colonial frontiers that stood are long gone. New-age imperialism is booming. China has already muscled in on the old UK ground: Beijing is a massive investor in many African countries now, often exchanging construction workers and architects for coal. India is turning into a global power capable of looking after itself. South Africa has now joined Brazil, Russia, India and China in their strong, emerging-powers BRICS bloc.

Latin America is full of successful, healthy and democratic countries. Mexico, Argentina and Brazil are in the G20. The region does not need stabilising support but it would welcome closer trade and investment links. As Mr Hague noted in his speech “We export over three times more to Ireland than we do to the whole of Latin America”. That needs addressing fast. China is becoming the dominant power in Africa. As Brazil outgrows Latin America and sets its sights on global ambitions, the UK would do worse then re-focusing a little of its ring-fenced international development budget and a lot of its trade desires on Latin America.

A fortress made of BRICS

The BRICS countries are building a formidable global power base but there are still cracks in the foundations

With the addition of South Africa to the group late last year, the emerging markets bloc has expanded its reach and capability considerably. It now has fingers in pies cooking in all corners of the globe and each member-state has a rough home ‘region’ where it is the dominate force. Brazil has majority sway over Latin American affairs, China rules the construction industry in Africa and Russia has diplomatic and industrial control throughout the former Soviet Union nations. But the way they influence and react with each other – let alone other countries – is both a cause for celebration and concern.

China is the most successful of the BRICS. It competes with Brazil in Latin America and rivals South Africa throughout Africa, be it through construction contracts in Angola or oil agreements in Sudan. Its conveyor lines drive European businesses back home and its markets are being opened up to foreign firms. It is powerful militarily, diplomatically and economically. China also is skilled at both comforting and irritating rival BRICS. It is happy to let South Africa be a diplomatic voice for Africa while it maintains its industrial strength there. But it has annoyed India by cosying up to Pakistan recently with economic agreements and plans for motorways and railways between the two countries. The transport links would pass through a part of Kashmir that India sees as its own and that Islamabad ceded to Beijing in 1963.

The other powers have also tried to carve out distinct paths across the globe. Brazil is promoting itself as a leader of a new international diplomacy by flexing its negotiation muscles and by engaging with Iran and the Middle East. Russia is still sending rockets to the International Space Station and is arguably the closest of the BRICS to Europe. India is starting to move its weight in South East Asia and has belatedly broken free from its comfortable domestic engine room to engage with African nations and make its nuclear-backed voice heard. South Africa is aiming to make the continent it foots its own, at first through diplomacy (President Jacob Zuma recently met Colonel Gaddafi for talks), and later by possibly challenging China industrially.

There are many sticking points. China and India have a disputed border and Beijing is cross that Delhi lets the Dalai Lama use India as his base-in-exile. Diplomatically, Brazil and South Africa are making an impact on the world stage, while quietly letting China continue to invest in their ‘home’ regions. But while China powers on, Russia is stalling and South Africa relatively inexperienced as the baby of the club.

It is up to Brazil and India to move the BRICS on from a second-class talking-shop to the most important international alliance. An Argentine writing his doctorate on Argentina and Brazil’s economies recently told me that “Brazil is big, very big – too big in fact” and the same could be said for India. They are outgrowing their respective Latin American and sub-continental origins and it is time that they give China a rest from pace-setting. They are certainly all building themselves up quickly and strongly and the West ignores them at its peril.

An Arab and his amigos

Colonel Gaddafi appears to be increasingly isolated. Will he look to his Latin friends for an exit route?

William Hague, the British Foreign Secretary, suggested (erroneously) back in February that Muammar Gaddafi had fled Libya and sought refuge with the friendly face of Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan president – a claim which Caracas criticised heavily. However, that idea was not a whimsical prospect dreamt up by Mr Hague at random – Mr Chavez has made it a habit of his to befriend states with clear anti-US rhetoric and ideals, such as Iran and Cuba. Libya has been no exception and in 2009, Gaddafi named a football stadium after the Venezuelan premier (only for rebels to rescind the honour a few weeks ago). (Football seems to be a peculiar source of mutual content for states which take pleasure in upsetting the US.)

Now Colonel Gaddafi is losing support in the Maghreb and in his own cabinet , can he look west across the Atlantic for help? Chavez has derided the ‘no-fly-zone’, calling it ‘total madness’ and his thoughts have been echoed by many across Latin America.

Brazil abstained from voting on the UN Security Council’s Resolution 1973, the document which gave the allies their international legal permission to crackdown on Gaddafi’s forces. Evo Morales, the Bolivian president, did not agreed with the UN’s decision and announced his ”condemnation, repudiation and rejection” of the intervention.

Similar noises were made by Nicaragua, where Daniel Ortega, a constant thorn in the side of the West, criticised the UN for turning itself into ”an instrument of warmongering and death for these powers”. Fidel Castro accused NATO of ”demonstrating the waste and chaos that capitalism perpetuates” and the President of Uruguay, Jose Mujica, although ‘lamenting’ the attacks by Gaddafi, pointed out that ”saving lives with bombs is an inexplicable contradiction in terms”. Argentina, Ecuador and Paraguay also came out against Resolution 1973.

But there were some resolute stances from the Latin Americans in favour of the allied action. Mexico, Peru, Chile and El Salvador all came out in favour of the Security Council’s decision. Colombia said that the Gaddafi regime had ”made fun of” the resolution and President Santos called for an end to the fighting.

So Gaddafi seemingly has a few open doors in Latin America. Whether he will choose to walk through them remains, at this stage in the crisis, very hard to predict. However, public opinion can be fickle in Latin America and presidents are always on the hunt for high approval ratings – giving the Colonel some free bed and board might not go down too well. So as this situation develops, despite their previous announcements, it is not a given that the Latin capitals will continue to be so welcoming to the dictator.

Time for a Latin lesson

Despite the disaster in Japan and the alternative power sources, dozens of countries have an unstoppable thirst for nuclear power. They should have a look at what is going on in Latin America and the Caribbean.

70% of the electricity that Latin America and the Caribbean region use comes from renewable energy sources, according to a report published last week by the Inter-american Development Bank (BID). The BID has ploughed millions of dollars into energy development projects across the regions in the last decade or so, and the results have been admirable.

Arnaldo Vieira de Carvalho, an energy specialist at the BID, said that, after the conferral of the loans:

“The only obligation that they [national governments] have with us is to work in two areas: on the generation of renewable energy and on climate change. These are long-term loans for more than 30 years, and this gives them more freedom for their work.”

After what happened in Japan, Germany, (which has 17 reactors on the go at the moment), announced an immediate review of its nuclear programme. The UK and Indian governments (19 and 20 reactors respectively) both asked for safety reviews. Even China (13 reactors) postponed the approval of any more for the time being. It has plans lined up for an astonishing 160 new reactors.

But the desire for nuclear energy is weak in Latin America and the Caribbean, where there are only six reactors in total (Argentina, Brazil and Mexico have two each). The three major players in the region are leading the way in their renewable ambitions and the BID is excited about what has been achieved so far from its support. According to Vieira de Carvalho, the renewable energy output of Brazil and Costa Rica is more than three times the global average.

What is also pleasing is that others seem keen to follow. Nicaragua, dotted with volcanoes, has just secured a $30.3 million loan to overhaul a geothermal energy plant in the west of the country.

According to the Financial Times, coal and gas make up 62.2% of the annual global energy consumption, whilst nuclear (13.5%) lags behind hydroelectric (15.9). And although more than 20 countries have more than 400 new reactors in the pipeline, none of them are in Latin America or the Caribbean, where nuclear power is used sparingly. There the plans are very much for a greener, cleaner future.

Reporting the dead: Part One

The Press Emblem Campaign (PEC) has published its end-of-year report and it does not make easy reading for journalists. This is the first part of a two-part blogpost analysing the data.

In 2010, 105 journalists were killed. Since 2006, 529 have died. The risky countries are not surprising. However, there are different reasons for the dangers faced by reporters and cameramen out on the roads.

There are two main sets of figures the PEC has released: this blogpost will look at this year’s figures and the next blogpost will analyse the global total of journalists’ deaths since 2006.

  • 2010 – Death toll: 105

a) The five most deadly countries in the last year

1 = Mexico and Pakistan 14 dead in both

With more than 3,000 people killed in Ciudad Juarez, a northern border town, this year alone, it is no great shock that the ‘war on drugs’ has claimed journalists’ lives in Mexico. The reporting of drugs deals and violence is often accompanied by death threats and in September the newspaper ‘El Diario de Juarez’ published a frank editorial to the gangs titled ‘What do you want from us?’ and agreed to print what the gangs wanted after one of its photographers was shot dead.

More than 3,000 died in violence in Pakistan last year. Militancy, tribal wars, US drone strikes and the Pakistani armed forces’ battles against Taliban insurgents have contributed to the rising deaths. Journalists covering the militancy have been shot as political, religious and international tensions grow.

3. Honduras 9

Since the 2009 coup, which installed Porfirio Lobo as the new premier, politically-motivated murders have been on the rise. In addition, the contagion of Mexico’s ‘war on drugs’ has spread to the country and that has caused further problems for journalists in the field.

4. Iraq 8

US combat operations ceased in Iraq this year but thousands of troops are still in the country training troops and aiding stabilisation policies. The insurgency has claimed 8 journalists’ lives this year alone.

5. The Philippines 6

Religious conflict in the mainly-Muslim south and the ferocious and deadly politics, where ethnicity, party allegiances, family ties and religion meet in a lethal mix, have created an unstable environment in which to report.

b) The deadliest nations in the rest of the world

Africa (14): Nigeria 4, Somalia 3, Angola 2, Uganda 2, Cameroon 1, DRC 1, Rwanda 1

Asia (16): Indonesia 3, Nepal 3, Afghanistan 2, Thailand 2, India 2, Bangladesh 1, Yemen 1, Israel/Gaza 1, Lebanon 1

Europe (11): Russia 5, Belarus 1, Bulgaria 1, Cyprus 1, Greece 1, Ukraine 1, Turkey 1

Latin America (13): Colombia 4, Brazil 4, Venezuela 2, Argentina 1, Ecuador 1, Guatemala 1