Rodrik’s attemps to address certain important questions revolving around globalisation in the article such as: Who does this process of globalisation really benefit? Is it mutually beneficial to all countries that are a part of this global network or does it work more for some countries over others? Does globalisation benefit certain countries at the cost of other countries? Does it at all help those countries who actually need help the most, the poor developing countries or what Manfred Steger calls the ‘global south’ in his book, ‘A Very Short Introduction to Globalisation’. Is globalisation simply making the rich richer or does this global increase in wealth actually trickle down to the poor? For the anti-globalisation camp, is it globalisation itself that is fundamentally unfair and unacceptable as a process or the way it is being practiced – these are some of the issue that define his debate.

The article simplifies the complex subject of globalisation by dividing it into its component parts and discusses these one by one. The fundamental processes involved in globalisation are trade liberalisation or free trade between counties; open financial markets or free flows of capital between countries and international labour mobility or free movement of labour between countries and a set of rules that govern the commercial interaction between countries.

The most important point that Rodrik makes in his article is that though globalisation is a boon for developing countries, the rules according to which countries are being asked to play the game are often not. Herein lies the crux of the issue. He discusses China’s astounding and India’s not quite astounding but certainly impressive economic growth in spite of and in some cases because of flouting these so called rules of the game and uses them as examples to prove this point.

About China, he writes, ‘China’s economic policies have violated virtually every rule by which the proselytizers of globalization would like the game to be played. The remarkable thing about China is that it has achieved integration with the world economy despite having ignored the rules—and indeed because it did so.’ ‘India’, he writes, ‘managed to increase its growth rate through the adoption of more pro-business policies, despite having one of the world’s most protectionist trade regimes. Its comparatively mild import liberalization in the 1990s came a decade after the onset of higher growth in the early 1980s. And India has yet to open itself up to world financial markets—which is why it emerged unscathed from the Asian financial crisis of 1997.’

The most commonly deployed counter arguments by pro-globalisers made in defence of globalisation is that only those countries that have toed the line, played by the rules and integrated the most with the world economy by throwing open their borders to free trade and free flow of capital are the ones that have benefited from globalisation. Dani Rodrik uses Argentina as an example to illustrate that this does not hold true. Argentina followed every rule in the book: opened its doors to globalisation and embraced it with little in terms of caution and protectionism. And then, without warning, fickle minded international investors withdrew their capital from Argentina in what he calls ‘an abrupt reversal in market sentiment’ as a result of which the Argentinean economy crashed. Hence, Argentina’s example proves contrary to what the globalisers seem to propagate vis-à-vis the benefits accruing from maximum integration of individual economies with the world economy.

Citing these examples Rodrik thus concludes that countries that have scored the most impressive gains are not necessarily those that have followed the rules but infact those that have, as he puts it, developed their own version of the rulebook while taking advantage of world markets.

On the subject of rules, he also points out that they are at the very outset designed in such a way as to benefit the developed countries more than the developing world. He looks at free trade and market protection for example. He writes, ‘the regulations that developing nations confront in those markets are highly asymmetric. Import barriers tend to be highest for manufactured products of greatest interest to poor countries, such as garments. But the disconnect between trade rules and development needs is nowhere greater than in the area of international labor mobility. Thanks to the efforts of the United States and other rich countries, barriers to trade in goods, financial services, and investment flows have now been brought down to historic lows. But the one market where poor nations have something in abundance to sell—the market for labour services—has remained untouched by this liberalizing trend. Even a small relaxation of these rules would produce huge gains for the world economy, and for poor nations in particular’.

While Rodrik does a good job of clarifying and simplifying the issues that are central to the discussion on globalisation, his endeavour to do so has led him to oversimplify and often simply overlook certain key aspects of the debate. One glaring oversight is related to the rules governing free labour mobility. He offers a simplistic solution to the otherwise complex issue of cross border free international labour mobility completely overlooking the cultural and political implications this would have for the host countries.

While he is correct in his view that the ‘western blueprint’ of globalisation has had severely adverse effects on countries in Africa and South East Asia, a number of these countries especially in Africa are in the state they are in more so because of lack of effective political governance. This aspect of political mismanagement and corrupt leadership is not considered by Rodrik in his analysis.

Finally, it surprises me that Rodrik has completely overlooked the issue of agriculture. He argues that the one thing that the developing world has to offer in abundance is labour, whereas most developing countries are agro economies for whom the main source of foreign exchange earnings is agricultural exports to the western world. However, the ‘asymmetrical’ rules of globalisation that Rodrik mentions time and again are most pronounced in the case of agricultural subsidies which western nations use to protect their farmers and hence prohibit free and fair trade.

While the article touches upon a number of important concepts, key words and catch phrases in the globalisation lexicon and highlights the paradoxical nature of effects of the asymmetrical rules that govern the globalisation framework, it makes you deliberate over just who makes these asymmetrical rules and why they seem to be getting away with it!

Critique of article ‘Globalisation for Whom’ by Dani Rodrik http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/070280.html

Let’s look at another observation that Jenkins makes which I also find myself in agreement with. He writes, ‘The best moment to withdraw was when the Pentagon originally intended, in June 2003, leaving Ahmed Chalabi to fight things out with the Shi’ite clerics after Saddam’s downfall. But the urge to “rebuild a nation” got the better of Bush and Blair. Another date is now, with a new government in place’.

He adds, ‘there are two consequences of each refusal to leave. First, the troops offer an ever more inviting target for insurgency and a magnet for anti-western guerrillas from across the region. This in turn boosts the militias as alternative power networks and encourages politicians to back them rather than the army. Second, each postponement of withdrawal undermines the independence and self-reliance of the current Iraqi leader.’

Iraq did go to the polls to democratically elect a government and there has been some semblance of a constitution being established. No denying, three governments in three years is indeed a very poor track record. But Like Jenkins, I believe that this is because of continued presence of the coalition forces on Iraqi soil which is threatening the tiny seeds of democracy that are struggling to take root there.

Earth to those of you, who say the coalition forces should not pull out just yet because they fear a bloodbath between the Shiites and the Sunnis or that terrorists will make Iraq their home or because there will be anarchy. Well, wake up and smell the coffee. All this and more continues to happen while the forces are very much there. Describing the current situation in Iraq, Jenkins writes, ‘What was to be a neocon beacon of democratic stability has become a hell-hole of anarchy. This place is a failed state. There is no rule of law’.

The need of the hour then is a post haste exit strategy for the coalition forces. Now as I see it, the best exit strategy, keeping in mind the ethnic, sectarian and religious divisions in Iraq particularly between Shiites and Sunnis, is the Divide Iraq strategy. Jenkins cites the example of the division of Yugoslavia into Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Serbia and Slovenia, to keep the peace in the region. I think this is a good case to make in favour of the division of Iraq.

Jenkins writes, ‘In Yugoslavia the solution, abetted by western intervention, was partition. In Iraq, America began the same process by guaranteeing de facto autonomy to Kurdistan. That logic must now be followed to its conclusion.’ The Iraqi constitution allow for any of Iraq’s 18 provinces to be grouped into regions, each with an allotted share of oil revenue and an option of assuming responsibility for legislation. This constitutional provision can provide the template for the division.

I reiterate, dividing Iraq between the Shiites, Sunnis and the Kurds is not the best strategy. Unfortunately, things are the way they are today because of a series of botched up jobs and tactical mistakes by the Coalition. For instance, dissolving Saddam’s former Iraqi army has led to a huge number of highly resentful, highly armed and highly dangerous people becoming the obvious recruitment candidates for the various religious militias and terrorist groups operating there. Coming back to the main point, the Coalition forces have overstayed their welcome. Forces that were considered as liberators three years ago are now widely considered occupiers. For Iraq’s sake and for their own sake, they must get out now. Unfortunately, things have come to a state where to do so, except for partitioning Iraq, no other half decent, workable solution seems to present itself!

I deem it necessary to point out, however, that Jenkins has overlooked an important aspect in his analysis. What he doesn’t get into in his article is how this division would logistically be managed. If it is done on the basis of region then the Shiites will get the south because they are concentrated there, the Kurds will get the north for the same reason and the Sunnis get the centre. But there are more Oil reserves in The North and the South than there are in the centre which will result in more strife between the groups. Fortunately, how this proposed plan will actually be managed is not so much for journalists like Jenkins to figure out. Over to the U.S. State Department for that!!

The other prominenet things that come to mind about the Make Poverty History campaign are the G8 summit in Gleneagles which resulted in an unprecedented cancellation of debt for 38 African countries, and a pledge for additional aid of $50 billion. And the Live8 concerts organised by famous British rock star Bob Geldof to raise awareness for the campaign which pulled in an unprecidented global viewership of a whopping 3 billion people across the world. Then there’s the Make Poverty History ‘Click’ media campaign which grabbed the attention of the public; celebrity endorsements by the likes of Bono, Brad Pitt and Kate Moss. The support of the campaign went all the way up to Downing Street with the Prime Minister in a press conference in July last year going to the extent of saying, ‘The Campaign to Make Poverty History has been the most extraordinary civic society campaign that I have ever come across.’ It touched the lives of over 3 billion people through the live8 concerts, the Click TV adverts and the Make Poverty History rallies…that’s almost half the population of the world!

What comes as a surprise then is the fact that the alliance that achieved this astounding feat, the Make Poverty History coalition, doesn’t exist anymore!
Despite a noble cause and the support of governments, celebrities, over 500 charities and most importantly the masses, Make Poverty History as an organisation has itself become history.

This, I learnt, is because it was always conceived as a ‘temporary’ coalition . It was a coalition of UK charities, religious organisations, campaign groups, trade unions and celebrities which mobilised themselves in the form of a single group with a united call for action under the banner Make Poverty History for one year, explains Clair Seaward, Oxfam Campaigns Manager, which was a major player in the Make Poverty History coalition. The aim was to take advantage of the UK’s prominence in world politics in 2005, with it holding the presidency of the EU and hosting the G8 summit. Their goal was to increase awareness and pressure governments into taking actions towards relieving extreme poverty and renewing their commitment toward the millennium promise. The millennium promise was a promise made in the year 2000 by every country in the world to work towards a timetable to halve extreme poverty by the year 2015.

According to Make Poverty History the UK was not alone in its efforts but was in fact part of a global movement where 84 national coalitions around the world united in the Global Call to Action against Poverty.

Says Clair Seaward, from the UK perspective, Make Poverty History is a UK thing. It was, simply put, the UK theme for the year 2005 of the global campaign against poverty. Infact, following the success of the UK campaign, the global camapign is popularly kown as the the global aspect of Make Poverty History. However, it is distinctly different from the UK Make Poverty History in that the latter is larger in scope and is an ongoing camapaign globally. She admits that this might seem a bit confusing to grasp especially since the UK Make Poverty History campaign became much more famous than its parent organisation, GCAP or the Global Call to Action Against Poverty. While most people know about the Make Poverty History coalition, the typical reaction is “GCAP who?” when it comes up, generally in the context of the Make Poverty History campaign.

War on Want Campaigns and Policy Director John Hilary, who was involved in the Make Poverty History Coalition, reinforces the above view. He says, “Make Poverty History was started up as a specific campaign for a limited time period of one year in the UK because we had the specific opportunity of the G8 summit and the EU presidency. However, obviously, for all of us within the UK and in the world the endeavour against poverty goes on. We are and will continue to fight against the unfair rules of globalisation at the moment. The GCAP coalition is clearly continuing that in its own way. A lot of us who are members of other coalitions are also doing the same thing in our respective countries.”

GCAP is a global campaign managed largely by South African born Kumi Naidoo who is the secretary general and the chief executive officer of the CIVICUS. CIVICUS is an alliance of over 500 civil society organizations, networks, and individuals in more than 100 countries, which is dedicated to strengthening citizen and civil society action throughout the world.

Oxfam’s Claire Seaward adds, “After last year’s successful campaign, there are other countries that are using the phrase Make Poverty History for their poverty alleviation campaign, but there are many others who are not. Each country can and has been calling the campaign in their own country what makes more sense. So, in some places it is ‘Keep Your Promises’, in other places it is No More Excuses, but it all comes under the banner of the global campaign against poverty. “

According to the figures published by Make Poverty History, approximately 1 billion people i.e. every1 in 6 of the world’s population, lives on less than $1 a day. They believe that world poverty is sustained not by nature but by factors such as unfair trade practices, huge debt and insufficient & ineffective aid. They believe that policy changes in these three areas – trade, debt and aid – would stop the suffering. Their call to action included measures such as ending export subsidies by the rich nations as part of their Trade Justice Campaign, dropping unpayable debt for the world’s poorest countries as part of their Drop the Debt Campaign and giving more in aid as a part of their More and Better Aid campaign.

However, not everyone agrees with the formula that the Make Poverty History coalition patronises to allevaite world povery. In an article on Times Online, entitled, ‘Click, click, click. If only saving haf the world from poverty was so simple’, Stepehen Pollard to this effect writes , ‘The campaign could more accurately be renamed Make Poverty Permanent, such would be the effect of its proposals being implemented.’

War on Wants’ John Hilary, who was also the Chair of the Trade Justice Movement, a group which comprises largely of economists and political economists, was heavily involved in the policy making of the Make Poverty History economic agenda particularly on trade. He says, “The trade justice movement did all of the trade policy for the Make Poverty History campaign and it is based on perfectly sound economic principles. It is the same policy which all of the rich countries of the world themselves followed in their own development path, the UK, Germany, the US and of course Japan after the Second World War. The evidence is entirely on our side. The economics is also on our side. The history books are on our side.”

He adds, “Economists here have never done development economics so they are unaware of the enormous changes that are taking place in that field and the enormous amount of research which has actually blown apart the sort of 18th century ‘Ricardian’ theory of comparative advantage. That is just not working in the world which we have got at the moment so the efforts here that we base our policy decisions on are a large amount of statistical data and a large amount of on the ground experience which each of our organisations bring to the debate.’
As far as achievements go, John Hilary refutes the claim that Make Poverty History was aiming to end poverty. ‘Saving half the world from poverty’…“is not something that can be achieved overnight, or even in a matter of a year or two and we knew that. The campaign was to raise awareness. Last year through the concerts and celebrity campaign etc. and the media coverage, we managed to reach out to a completely new audience who weren’t really involved or interested in these issues.”

Claire Seaward of Oxfam says, ‘One of the big aims was to actually bring everyone together for one year when there was in the UK particularly a really unique opportunity to influence world leaders under one voice to make a really big impact. Because obviously one can talk of these issue on their own in their own organisations in their own ways but if you all come together and do it at the same time it makes an incredible amount of noise. And I think that was definitely achieved. If you look at the Make Poverty History rally on the 7th of July there were a quarter of a million people who came from all over the UK to Scotland, which was not exactly a central location, but people took time and made the effort to do that. So there was a ‘mass noise’ made throughout the year and that was a really positive thing that Make Poverty History did achieve.

Kumi Naidoo, CIVICUS Secretary General and chair of the Global Call to Action against Poverty (GCAP) notes in an article entitled ‘Refelections of the G8 Summit’, that the campaign was successful in mobilising the masses to an unprecedented scale with the Live 8 concerts, which took the message of trade justice, debt cancellation and the need for more and better aid to a global audience of 3 billion people, raising public awareness on these issues as has never been done before, demonstrated for instance by the sending of text messages by some 30 million people to G8 leaders to urge them to act with courage and compassion.. However, he went on to add that as far as real action is concerned, “The people have roared but the G8 has whispered”. So, while the G8 summit in Gleneagles was a victory for civil society, it was a failure of leadership on the part of the political leaders of the G8 when it came to trade justice, and even the progress that was made in terms of aid and debt cancellation, fell far short of expectations.

In a press release, the Make Poverty History states, ‘The combination of grassroots activism, popular campaigning and global action focussed worldwide attention on rich country governments to demonstrate a dramatically different level of political commitment and tackle global poverty through action and not words.’ In this sense London School of Economics Professor Dr. Judith Shapiro agrees with Kumi Nadioo when she says that the words were there but unfortunately the action was missing, especially when it comes to Trade Justice. She says, Make Poverty History has come up with a theoretical solution to alleviating poverty which does add up econmically but the fact that at the level of action not all that they were aiming at was achieved could be a result of over-ambition at the expectation level clubbed with over-simplification at the logistical level. She believes, by setting one too many goals which are impossible to achieve in the time frame that was set out, the Make Poverty History campaign may have set itself up for failure. But there’s no denying that Make Poverty History has put poverty alleviation firmly on the global agenda and has thus achieved a great deal in that sense!

Along with being the most elaborate and the oldest tube system, the London Underground is also the most expensive in the world, what the January edition of the magazine Lonely Planet calls a “horrendously overpriced” underground. A recent comparative study made by Linda MacDonald of the fare prices of the London Underground with other metro systems around the word shows that the London metro is the most expensive at almost exactly double the price of the second most expensive on the list, the Tokyo Underground. The latter amounts to 1.48 GBP as compared to £3 for a single journey on the London tube after fares on the London Underground jumped by 50% on a single day journey from January 2006. Third on the list is New York with the fare being equal to 1.16 in GBP.

The London Underground system’s management was transferred from the Central Government to Transport for London in 2003. Since January 2003, the London Underground has been operated as a Public-Private Partnership (PPP), where all the infrastructure and rolling stock is maintained by private companies under 30-year contracts whilst it remains publicly owned and operated by Transport for London. Transport for London is controlled by a board whose members are appointed by the Mayor of London, a position currently held by Ken Livingstone, who also chairs the Board. The Commissioner of Transport for London, a position currently held by Robert Kiley, who reports to the board. Only recently, on the 17th of January this year, the Mayor announced the appointment of Peter Hendy as the Commissioner of Transport for London who was to take over the post from the month of February.

According to a London underground spokesperson, Peter Maclennan, the tube was in a very very poor condition when Transport for London took over responsibility for it about 3 years ago. Peter says, “We are having to spend about in the region of 30 billion pounds over the next 20-30 years basically rebuilding the system while actually running services each and every day, so in many ways it’s like performing open heart surgery on someone who’s actually trying to run a 100 meters race.” The tube unlike other metro systems has suffered from decades of under investment. Hence, the recent increase in fares to try and make up for the same, according to Peter.

Peter explains, “the only way we can deliver the much needed improvements to the network is one through funding that we raise through ticket revenue and secondly through the grants that we get through the central government and the greater London authority. If we did not have that money to spend then, given the fact that it has suffered from decades of under investment we would probably have to begin to shut down sections of the network itself. He adds, “We have to deal with the reality here that the tube has been starved of income for 30 to 40 years yet the demands on it continue to increase. The number of passengers who use the tube are projected to increase by 25% over the next 10 years…so at the moment if we are carrying 3 million passengers on a network that is already sometimes struggling to cope and we need that additional investment in order that we can carry virtually 4 million passengers each and every week day in 10 years time.”

Salim Amin: In some African countries like Kenya there is an enormous amount of freedom of the press, there is 4-5 private TV stations, private radio stations, private newspapers, same in Nigeria, same in South Africa…Other Countries like Zimbabwe for example there is only state controlled media… and it will be a difficult market to penetrate.

Salim feels it is very important for Africans to receive news from other Africans. He hopes that ATV will do for Africa what Al Jazeera has done for the Arab world in giving it a united voice.

Al-Jazeera has transformed the Arab world and coverage of the Arab world and we hope the same for ATV…Africa needs a change of image…and it needs to be understood which is not happening at the moment.

Al Jazeera London chief Yousri Fouda has been through the experience that Salim Amin is going through with trying to set up ATV when the Pan Middle Eastern channel Al Jazeera was set up. Yosri says it is important for people to control their own media to change world perception.

Yousri Fouda: The very experience of Al Jazeera itself I think contributed to a more positive attitude from the western world…the very fact that people here in the west suddenly found out that Arabs can actually make good journalists, can actually operate a camera, link it to a cable to a satellite and beam a signal out of somewhere to every body around the world…that in itself is a positive phenomenon…Africa is full of talent and the Arab world is full of talent…its all about opportunities

However, according to Yosri the situation for ATV is slightly different from Al Jazeera so their challenge is enormous.

Yousri Fouda: They have extra challenges like multiple languages in Africa…difference of political opinions …In Africa it is not as seemingly coherent as the Arab world.

Other African Journalists have welcomed the ATV project. Infact, Nigerian Journalist Halima Maigari feels that it is long overdue.

Halima Maigari: The western media have said their own…now its time for Africans to speak their own story themselves…agreed there are issues like conflict, hunger, disease…but there are certain positive things that happen in Africa that are never reflected.

The ATV network which hopes to launch by the end of this year will focus on issues of overall development on the continent. Salim Amin says ATV will show what he calls the real picture, the success stories and not just the failures.

Maayan Manaela: I think actually its safer that Hamas is in power because when it was operating as a terror organisation and the Palestinian authority said we don’t support terrorism then it was harder to fight it but now its their government…it’s the Palestinian authority, so its I think easier to deal with

While Middle East journalist and Al Jazeera chief Yosri Fouda is not as optimistic that Hamas will give up the gun completely, he feels by foraying into politics, Hamas has shown that they are open to dialogue.

Yosri Fouda: Hamas has proven that it can be sensible…you can actually talk to them…Hamas is not Al Qaeda… Al Qaeda will never sit to a table eventually and discuss terms and conditions

Yosri says it is a very good sign that Hamas considered it an option to be part of a political process. He feels, now it’s down to other international forces to try and keep them in what he calls the positive abyss of political existence.

Yosri Fouda: Hamas is not only a military movement or organisation…it’s a very deep rooted social movement in the Palestinian society…unless you include a very popular social movement like Hamas in any kind of political process then you wont be able to really even begin to find a genuine settlement for the main core of the problem in the Middle East

While Hamas has achieved internal legitimacy, it has not yet got external recognition. International Relations professor Roger Tooze says Hamas will not get the external recognition it needs if it does not give up its arms. External legitimacy is crucial for Palestine more so because its economy depends almost entirely on foreign aid.

Roger Tooze: If Hamas will renounce its policy of working towards the extermination of Israel then it will be acceptable as a legitimate government. The governments involved need to give Hamas clear signals about what is acceptable and what is not acceptable…then Hamas has to decide. If it decides to continue its policies then it will be responsible for the withdrawal I suspect of most of the money which comes in to support the Palestinian state. It will be directly responsible for the misery of its own people.

‘There can be few worse nightmares for a journalist than to appear in the witness box giving evidence against a former source for having committed a brutal murder,’ wrote Nick Martin-Clark, in the British Journalism Review. He added, ‘Journalists often end up in court for refusing to divulge their sources. I, however, appeared against my source after having given an undertaking of confidentiality.’ He justifies his actions to an outraged journalist community by explaining, ‘The principle of confidentiality, important though it is, is not an end in itself but ultimately a means to disclosure which must remain for journalists our primary purpose. This was the thrust of advice given to me by Chris Frost, chair of the NUJ Ethics Committee, when he told me in a pre-publication consultation that it was sometimes permissible to “act as a citizen”. ‘

In principle I agree with Nick Martin-Clark’s view that an absolute stance on confidentiality is akin to total pacifism or to not telling a lie even to save a life. Journalists have to decide whether there is an overwhelming society interest in the source being revealed like in the above-mentioned case. A greater public interest overrides the fact that sources are the life blood of journalism and hence sometimes in the interest of the public, it is more important that justice be served than the fact that for a democracy to function there should be free flows of information, or rather the freest possible flows of information. Barring exceptional cases however, what is a given, is that sources be protected.

Unlike me there are journalists who don’t buy Nick-Martin Clark’s explanation. John Coulter of the Irish Daily Star feels that the relationship between the journalist and his source is absolutely sacrosanct. He writes, ‘The Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice makes the following recommendation, “Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information.” In practical terms this advice could be interpreted as: “A journalist who has a genuine source providing bona fide information should take whatever steps are required to protect the identity of that source.”’

But what if a journalist comes across information that has to do with a serial killer striking again or a transnational terrorist plot or a rapist on a rampage? Would it make a difference then that the source of the information is a criminal who may have extracted a promise of strict confidentiality from the journalist and then revealed all. In such situations the journalist’s duty to protect the source naturally takes a backseat to other ethical and moral concerns like protecting the interest of society and safeguarding the lives of people.

Jim Naureckas, editor of media journal Extra!, remarks that journalists are often justified in keeping their sources secret. Government and corporate wrongdoing is frequently exposed by people without a legal right to reveal the incriminating information, who may face retribution if they are revealed as whistleblowers. Many times the public interest in learning about malfeasance outweighs the laws that protect official secrets.

Here is where the public interest test that I referred to earlier comes into play. This is to say that if someone breaks the law by giving information to a journalist, or reveals to a journalist that they have committed a crime, the journalist has to be able to argue that in that specific case, protecting the source’s identity serves the public more than bringing the source to trial.

Cases such as the Judith Miller one have resulted in an urgent reviewing of standards of journalism world over. This has raised sensitive questions, many of which are not resolved in the law, such as who owns a reporter’s notes; how far should a news organization go in protecting a source and defying a court order; can this be left to individual journalists to decide or is some definitive legislation required, like a journalistic code of conduct recognized by the law?

British journalist, Raymond Snoddy says even though he believes that the duty of journalists to protect their sources is very high, he thinks it goes too far to say that journalists should have the right to protect their sources under all circumstances. He explains that journalists should protect their sources for two real reasons. The first is an ethical issue of trust with the sources, especially in cases where people have only spoken or given information on the basis that their anonymity will be protected. And the second is a very practical reason. If journalists start taking a lackadaisical attitude towards protecting their informants then the source of really good information will simply dry up. However, there are exceptions, according to him. Clearly if a major act of terrorism is planned then the journalistic responsibility to protect sources should fall away.

As far as legislation is concerned he adds, ‘The British legal system does not formally recognize that journalists have a right to protect their sources and indeed some editors have gone to jail rather than reveal sources. I’m afraid it’s a sort of responsibility journalists have to take on themselves. There are however semi official rules. The National Union of Journalists calls for sources to be protected and that is sort of binding on all its members. What it completely lacks at the moment of course is force of law.’

On the same lines, John Wilson, former editorial policy controller of the BBC writes, ‘One of the few accepted absolutes in journalism is that confidential sources must be protected.’ Clearly if promises over confidentiality are broken then the crucial trust between the source –and implicitly all other ones –and the journalist is lost. Such a stance is reaffirmed in media codes such as Clause 7 of the NUJ.

Pete Williams from America’s NBC News says it would be impossible to do our jobs if journalists were to think ‘Every potential bit of information we get could throw somebody in the slammer. Either the source or the reporter.’ He adds with reference in particular to the Judith Miller case, ‘One of the questions that has come out of this is whether there is sort of a reporter’s privilege, like there is an attorney-client privilege, or a doctor-patient privilege, or a priest-parishioner privilege’. He says, ‘a lawyer cannot be compelled to testify in court about conversations he’s had with his client. But the privilege does not actually belong to the lawyer. It belongs to the client. It’s the client’s privilege that the lawyer is protecting. It’s the parishioner’s privilege that the priest is protecting. It’s the patient’s privilege the doctor’s protecting. So by comparison here, by the analogy, it is the source’s privilege that the journalist is protecting. And if the source waives any confidentiality requirement, then the journalist really can’t say I don’t want to do it.’

Raymond Snoddy argues that different rules apply to lawyers and journalist because of the role that they play in society respectively. Lawyers have a right to a lawyer-client privilege because they are simply advising one person, their client. Their role is not to broadcast information to the world which is what a journalist has to do.

The need of the hour is a public interest test, not necessarily an absolute privilege. What former Sunday Times Editor Philip Knightly said about cheque-book journalism, in my view applies to the issue of confidentiality of sources as well, that one has to approach every case on the basis of merit.