Episode 13: The Right to Freedom of Expression
In the last episode of season one, we speak with a journalist who worked in the Basque autonomous region in Spain before joining UNESCO in 2011. Mikel Aguirre Idiaquez has been leading UNESCO Myanmar’s programme on Freedom of Expression as a critical element of the democratic transition that Myanmar initiated in 2012 after decades of military rule that kept the country isolated from the rest of the world. Mikel joins us from Yangon, Myanmar.
He speaks to us about:
identifying the distinctive advantage of your organization
defending freedom of expression
the importance of collaboration and multilateralism
the power of the media and the complexities of representation
the need to educate media consumers to become more conscious consumers
the importance of putting more effort in learning about the country you are working in - and much more.
Transcript
Intro: The role that the UN plays, and the role that we play as UNESCO is really as a facilitator. We provide the spaces for these other stakeholders, especially the local organizations - I think that they should have the leading voice, they should really lead the efforts. They know better than anyone else what is best for their country. They understand much better than anyone else which are the complexities, which are the ways to work. So the way I see myself is merely as a facilitator.
Safa: Welcome back to the Rethinking Development Podcast. My name is Safa and I will be your host as we speak with and learn from practitioners of all backgrounds and affiliations around the world. Each week we aim to rethink ethical behavior and best practices through the lived experiences and personal reflections of different practitioners. Our guest today is Mr Mikel Aguirre Idiaquez. Mikel is a journalist by training and worked for four years as a radio reporter for the public broadcast of the Basque autonomous region in Spain before initiating his journey in international development within the UN system. In 2011 Mikel joined UNESCO at the Jakarta regional office, where he launched the first regional program on youth and civic engagement. In that program, media played a central role as a means to empowering youth and strengthening their voices. Since 2015 Mikel has been working at the UNESCO office in Myanmar, where he has been leading the organization’s program on freedom of expression. He’s working closely with the government and journalists to open up a space for independent media and the promotion of the right to free expression as a critical element of the democratic transition that Myanmar initiated in 2012 after decades of military rule that kept the country isolated from the rest of the world. Mikel, thank you so much for speaking with us today.
Mikel: Thank you for having me.
Safa: Could you maybe first begin by telling us about what interested you in journalism in the first place and how that eventually led to a transition to UNESCO?
Mikel: Yes, well, since forever since I can remember, I always felt this passion around communication, the media. I was a very active television watcher, viewer, and I was also active reader of newspapers and I always had this interest in the very important role that I think that the media play in really breaking down complex issues and helping people understand how the world works. That’s how I initiated my career in journalism and I started working in the public broadcaster of my home in the Basque country, which is a small region in the north of Spain. And after a few years working in the media field directly as a reporter and news reader, I felt I wanted to move a step, one step forward. To continue working in journalism and the media, but maybe in a different environment, working in countries where journalists, free reporting, that is something that we take for granted in developed countries, it is still a very difficult task and journalists struggle day today to do their job around the world. So that’s how I decided to study development studies and initiate my career within UNESCO in the program of freedom of expression and since I started that journey as you said in the introduction, now I landed in Myanmar and I’m working really closely with the government, with the journalists to really help opening this space for freedom of expression. And the more I work in this field, the more experience I gain, the more I meet journalists, government officials, I realize how important it is to really have a free media that helps the people understand how their countries, how their governments operate and also gives them a voice, an opportunity to have a say in how their country should be and how the world should work in a broader sense.
Safa: Very interesting. Your passion for your work definitely comes through in the way that you speak about it. So your first international assignment, it was in Indonesia correct?
Mikel: Yes, that’s right.
Safa: So in those early days, you know, in your first experience, working in another country with UNESCO, what were some of the realities that perhaps before you hadn’t thought of or you hadn’t really imagined, you know, the work would unfold in that way or the system, the way that the system works. What were some of the things that you, you know, you learned or struck you that perhaps, were unexpected?
Mikel: Well, working in development, and working especially in the UN, I will say is really difficult at the beginning, even if I worked as a journalist for several years, even if I did the master’s degree on development studies and within the UN system specifically, you really don’t get to grasp how it is really to work in a UN organization in a developing country. So I will say that the first months and even the first years that I was working at the UNESCO office in Jakarta, I really struggled to really understand what was actually the role that we were playing and what is, what was this whole development business, if you might call it. So it was really difficult to really get to understand how an expert, maybe you can say at that time that was me, how could I contribute, right, to promote freedom of expression in a country like Indonesia? Also, the UN is a very complex institution, so it also took me a long time to really understand how the organization itself works and what is its role in all this development efforts, especially in countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, that were the countries under the regional office of Jakarta, where I was working. Those are quite developed countries, middle income country, upper middle income country, with a very vibrant and solid civil society organizations, very strong media institutions with press councils that already are doing excellent work in the promotion of freedom of expression and journalistic excellence. So one of the questions that would strike me over and over again was like, how can the UN really contribute to strengthening these systems and help further in promoting freedom of expression. With time, you get to realize that the very distinct roles that all the different actors that work in development have to play, right. It is not the same role that civil society organization play, is not the same role what journalists, press councils have to play and it is different role hat the UN plays. What is really important is really to find what is really , where does your organization stand in all this efforts to promote freedom of expression, bring this distinctive advantage and comparative advantage to the table and altogether — collaboration is one of the key things that I believe. So collaboration is really the key, knowing which is the specific role that the UN plays and work together, with other institutions that maybe have a more solid, a grassroots grounding in the country and altogether, I always say, is like we are all growing in the same boat in the same direction. We just need to know, how do we have to row — one has to give instructions, the other one has to pull the row stronger, slower, but in the end, knowing how each piece fits in this puzzle, that’s the key to really advance in freedom of expression.
Safa: You know, at that time, were there any trainings offered to you or did you have any, you know, specific conversations with your colleagues about how to address ethical issues in your work? Is this something that, you know, it was just assumed that you would individually have an opinion about it and, you know, deal with it individually or was there a policy or trainings or formal, you know, opportunities for you to discuss, okay, if an ethical issue comes up, how do we deal with it in terms of as a group, as an organization?
Mikel: Well working in the UN, obviously, the human rights declaration is the basic document, our our mother document for the work that we do. It is sort of assumed that everyone that decides to embark himself/herself in he UN system and to work with the UN will have a shared, a common vision and a set of common values that we defend through the work that we will be doing. UNESCO itself has also some very well defined and determined guidelines as per what are the ethical issues and values that the organization defends in its work towards the partners and also internally in the organization. Also, the way the organization works at a very fast pace with, we are really busy. We have a lot of work to do. I will say that maybe there was not so much a specific training given at the beginning, but every single year we had like training on work ethics and also not only internally but which are the core values that we defend as an organization that we need to make ours whenever we interact with the government or other partners. But as I was saying, it is assumed that anyone that decides to join an organization like UNESCO or other to UN agency, we do have some common values. We do have some common ethical standards that we aim to bring to our day today work and also to the country that we are working in.
Safa: Mhm, I see. You know, in terms of defining your comparative advantage or getting to understand the the role that you or your team really wanted to play, over time, could you tell us a bit about, you know, what the answer to that question was for you or like, how do you define the role that you or your team plays?
Mikel: Well, in my case, I work on freedom of expression related issues, right? So freedom of expression is considered mostly an area where activists, NGOs, journalist work on. It is a very different area from what other UN agencies do because it is straightforward defending a basic human right. And working with the government, there are some governments that might not be so keep to improve the situation of freedom of expressive in their country. But as the UN, we work for our member states, and we still need to work with these governments. This is a reason why in many cases, the UN gets heavy criticism, like why the UN doesn’t do more? But I firmly believe that accompanying the government, even if they have a straight forward no to freedom of expression, we still can work with them to develop a better understanding of what the role of media is in a democracy, the importance of freedom of expression for the development of the whole country. So these small ideas can be placed in the government, they are like small seeds that we plant in to the minds of policy makers and decision makers and with time, it really grows. And that is something that you can see. They might not open space completely 100% to freedom of expression in a couple of years, let’s say, but it shapes the way they develop their policies. And I really believe that the UN has a very important role to play here, that compliments what CSO’s and freedom of expression activities or human rights defenders, the work that they do. The UN compliments that work by accompanying the government in understanding better why are those activists or NGOs fighting for freedom of express. So helping government and democratic institution to understand why this is a claim, why this is considered a human right.
Safa: Mhm, as you say, it is planting the small seeds and with time they grow — so this partnership and this accompanying the government actors is a process that takes time, but it’s very valuable. Could you give us some examples practice of your own experience where, perhaps through patience, through persistence, through continued advocacy you saw that perhaps a policy or an idea that you were committed to, overtime, the government that you were working with came around and agreed to it or implemented it. Is there a specific example you have in mind?
Mikel: Yes, well, I mean, my experience in Myanmar is maybe the most meaningful one, right. I mean Myanmar has been an isolated country with a military regime for over four decades. The just started opening up to the world, they started giving very small steps towards becoming a democracy. So here we’re working very closely with the Ministry of Information. In the first years of the transition, there were many very bold and brave steps given by the government with new legislation put in place to promote freedom of expression. Censorship was abolished after 40 years, but then it got to a point of stagnation. The government was not maybe daring to give new steps. Or maybe they thought that their work was already done, that Myanmar was already a place where freedom of expression can be guaranteed, which actually it is not, we are still very far from having a fully free media in the country. So the way we are working now with the government and also with the parliament and even with the judiciary, is to help them understand better why it’s important to have freedom of expression, why we haven’t done enough work yet, why people have the right to know what is going on. And all though new legislation hasn’t been passed in the last three years, the government has initiated a series of initiatives to continue raising awareness among the people, among institutions, why media is important and why transparency, the flow of information is important. So through these efforts, together with the government, we have started to have very honest discussions with the Supreme Court. We’ve been having discussions with the military which still holds a lot of power in the country, 25% of the seats in the parliament are still in the hands of the military on four ministries as per the constitution remain still in the hands of the military. So of course, working with them to help them understand why freedom of expression is a basic human right and why it needs to be guaranteed. So then they started to have a better understanding. I mean, of course, we cannot change a country that has been isolated and with a very tight military regime for 40 years, we cannot change things overnight, but we have seen small reactions or responses already to these claims to expand the space for freedom of expression. The military has to start now have press conferences every month where they share the work that that they’re doing, where they share updates on the ongoing conflict. There are over 16 guerrillas and armed groups fighting right now in Myanmar against the central military body. And until now, there was almost no information coming from these areas. The military is now having these press confidences and updating the public and the journalist on what is happening because they’re realizing that they need to share this information, that this is an information that needs to be known by Myanmar citizens so that they can make up an opinion. So it’s a very long process and sometimes international pressure can be too much, especially in a country like Myanmar. There has been a lot of international pressure toe have the country overturn overnight, they wanted suddenly, we wanted democracy basically overnight. But this is a very long process. And in a country, as I was saying, like Myanmar with 40 years of a history of military regime, we really need to start from the very beginning and not only explaining policy makers and decision makers, what is freedom of expression, why it is important. We also need to explain better to the public what are the human rights. It seems something silly, but a lot of Myanmar people, they’re not aware that just for being born, just for existing, they are entitled to a series of rights. No one has ever talked to them and told them that they have rights just for being alive, for existing. So all this process of okay educating Myanmar people in their own rights and that they have as well the right to claim them, is also part of the work that we are doing. So it’s a very complex country, very complex situation, not only working with institutions for them to comply with international standards and with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But we are putting a lot of efforts as well in working with the people so that they understand their rights that they’re entitled to and that they have as well the right to fight for it and to claim them, to demand these rights are fulfilled by the country.
Safa: Right, so a human rights based approach. Myanmar is such a unique and complex country as you mentioned, but it’s very interesting to hear that in your experience, there have been a series of positive changes, even though, of course, establishing a democracy takes a long time. When you think of, you know, the concept of representation and the way that not only perhaps Myanmar is portrayed by international media, but the way that perhaps the information that people in Myanmar have access to about the world outside of their country, when you just think about representation and the importance of the ethical issues that are related to being honest, being truthful, protecting people’s identity perhaps in reports and stories, all these issues that come up, what are some of your thoughts or your experiences, you know, in terms of reporting or reports that you’ve contributed to or you worked on?
Mikel: As a journalist myself, very often we are not really aware over the great power that we have in our hands, the great power that the media has seen, as you were saying, in representation, especially since the crisis in the north of Rakhine happened in the summer of 2017, in August 2017. The media, especially international media, has given a very concrete idea or representation of what Myanmar is, of what this crisis that, I mean for those who might not be so familiar with the situation in Myanmar, this crisis in the north of Rakhine state led to a massive refugee crises of Rohingya ethnic citizens fleeing to the neighbouring country of Bangladesh, there are some reports by the fact finding mission of OHCHR, commissioned by OHCHR, that see traces of genocide in this issue, in the hands of the Myanmar military, no one has been able to reach the areas where this alleged genocide happened. And since that issue happened, the media has really given a very specific image, picture of Myanmar. Of course, something really terrible happened there. But that doesn’t reflect what is going on in the whole country. Of course the people that are responsible for this genocide, if finally it is confirmed that there was one, need to be held accountable. But it is true that every single media reporting about the issue of Myanmar doesn’t go deeper into the root causes of these, into the complexities of this country, into what the people in this country went through for the last 40 years. Myanmar is an incredible, diverse country. It has the size of Germany, let’s say , 50 million people and over 135 different ethnic groups live together in this country. And the issue of Rakhine is one more issue among all the challenges that this country is facing. The economy is completely tarnished, the education system is absolutely outdated. It didn’t change in the last 50 years at all. There are so many complexities within this country. But of course, in a news report you cannot capture all of that so outside of the country there was like one very specific picture that was a drawn from what Myanmar is and how the government is acting, and within the country of course, it was completely different from within the country also, because all those media reportings, they really feel that the world is against Myanmar, and this has been really counterproductive because what the country is now moving towards is more isolation. Once they started opening up, the just feel the international community is being unfair with them and they are going more into this situation of isolation. But that’s how, that’s the nature of the media, that’s the nature of the news media. It is really difficult to get to capture all the complexities and all the challenges that the country is facing in just, let’s say, a two minute video report or in a one page feature. I mean, the call is more on the media consumers to go a bit beyond just 2, 3 news reports and really try to read more about an issue and trying to understand more an issue. I mean, things are not white or black. There is a lot of grey area.
Safa: Absolutely. When you work with NGOs or local activists, in that relationship there there needs to be a certain level of trust for cooperation to happen. Could you perhaps tell us about you know, how you’ve experienced the best ways or some tools to build that trust, to create an environment where each different stakeholder or actor can really trust one another? Sometimes, you know, even amongst agencies, there can be rivalries, and there can be all sorts of different incidents or causes where trust is undermined or equal cooperation doesn’t exist. So in your experience, what are some ways or what are some tools or approaches that you’ve used or that have helped you in the process of, you know, building trust with your fellow stakeholders?
Mikel: In my opinion, the role that the UN plays, and the role that we play as UNESCO is really as a facilitator. We provide the spaces for these other stakeholders, especially the local organizations, I think that they should have the leading voice, they should really lead the efforts, they know better than anyone else what is best for their country. They understand much better than anyone else which are complexities, which are the ways to work. So the way I see myself is as merely as a facilitator. I enable them to talk to the institutions that for them it might not be so easy. Let’s say to meet with the Minister of Information. But for me us UN, I have that door open most of the time. I can easily access the highest level officials within the government thanks to my UN umbrella. So the way I see myself is really facilitating, enabling these local organizations, that really know and understand their country to access these positions in power. Also in Myanmar we are starting basically from zero. Civil society organizations existed before the opening of the country, but they were very small on and they had very little exposure. They had very little experience working with international development partners. So a very important role that I’ve been playing is really to strengthen their capacities. How can they better communicate their ideas? How come they better develop their own programs? Even the organizational structure of the local organizations were very informal, ad hoc, but not a really well structured institution that can grow stronger, that can really position themselves as a leading actor in whichever field they’re working on. So I really see that a key are to build this trust is take a backseat and let the local organizations, because they always know better , to lead the processors and as the UN or as an international organization just provide them the space, the tools, the capacities to do that and on the other hand, to continue strengthening them, supporting them to become stronger. Because at one point, development at the end of the day, we are a temporary assistance. At one point we need to leave Myanmar, the country and let the people living in this country to lead their processes and really take the decisions about how they want their country to be. So we have to keep that in mind, that we are a temporary assistance and we’ll need to leave at one point. So what is really important is strengthen this local institutions, these local mechanisms, organizations for them to really be able to to realize this vision that they have for their country.
Safa: Absolutely. As you say, organizations, international organizations, in theory are there on a temporary basis and that idea that there needs to be eventually enough capacity so that international organizations can eventually leave, that always has to be kept in the minds of people working in this industry. You know, UNESCO was in the news when the US decided to withdraw its funding from the organization. Of course, there are other funding member states, but the US withdrew and that was a significant amount of money that was leaving, and it caused quite a stir. I’m wondering if you could speak to us a bit about perhaps what you think about donors and the politicization of funding and maybe how you think the organization has restructured itself since that happened?
Mikel: Well, actually, the US already stopped their funding in 2011 which is when UNESCO accepted Palestine as a member of state to the organization. So the US stop their funding in 2011 when that happened. And in 2017 they decided to pull out completely from the organization. So they stopped the funding first but they continued to have a seat in the general conference where the decisions of the organization are made. But then 2017 they decided to completely pull out. So the biggest challenge was in 2011, right after the US decided to pull out their funding, there was a whole restructuring of the organization. And since then, we have relied more and more on bilateral donors that provide their funding directly to field officers to fund specific programs. Let’s say that we have two pools of funding, One that is given by the regular contributions that every member state gives on a biannual basis to the organization and then there are these other contributions that different countries give to specific programs and specific activities in field offices or also our headquarters for global activities, for a given framework. These, as you said, might raise questions about how much power have these bilateral donors to influence, let’s say the political agenda, I wouldn’t say there is a political agenda, but the development agenda of UNESCO. But the truth is that UNESCO has a mother program with very very well structured lines or areas of action where we have already our expected results and whenever we reach out to new bilateral donors that will fund specific activities, all of those activities need to feed within this mother framework that is decided with the consensus of all the member states. So there is, I think the organization is structured in a way that even if we get additional funding for specific activities, it always falls under the main lines of action that are predetermined by the general conference that includes all the member states.
Safa: When you think about the international development industry generally, what do you think are some of the challenges or what are some of the issues you think should be addressed or how the work should be done in a different way, just generally in the entire industry?
Mikel: Well, UNESCO, as well as the whole UN, is an organization that is massive you can say, has presence all around the world, we are dozens of different organizations under one same umbrella. So this has created the very complex organizational structure and very complex bureaucracy. From here is where it comes, all the criticism that sometimes the UN gets for being quote unquote inefficient, because we have to really deal with a very complex bureaucratic system and organizational structure. But this is also a reflection of the very complex issues and complexities that we have to address and deal with every day. Development and the promotion of human rights is a very complex and complicated area of work and issue. This is not like a laboratory. This is not where we can come with a recipe and we apply this and then the results come. So there are so many complexities in very different country. In every situation, the world is constantly changing, so of course the complex organizational structure on bureaucracy of the UN is just a reflection of the complexities of the world and the environment where we have to work. And it is the response to those those complexities. The world is constantly changing and the UN has to constantly change, create new strategies, create new approaches, create new systems to address the complex world that we live in. The UN is right now as well in a very profound transformation process. We are reflecting on the way that we have in working in the past years, and we are creating new systems to become more efficient when we are responding to crises, to be more efficient and effective when we have to to address issues of conflict, climate change, hate speech which are some of the new key areas that are arising, the refugee crisis in Europe, for example, all these new challenges need new responses and the UN is trying to restructure itself to address this. Also, I think that we are moving globally towards a situation where the UN might take more, not secondary position, but it will act more us provider of ideas, approaches and tools that the countries will be able to apply by themselves without the direct assistance that until now, international organizations, and here I’m not referring really only to the UN but also other international bodies, were given before. So we will act more as a laboratory of ideas, of solutions that are proposed for the countries, for the different national institution organizations to address themselves. So I think that that shift in development is happening and I think that that’s the direction that development work and the UN will be taking in coming years.
Safa: I see, very interesting. So this restructuring process, the shift, of course, sometimes these processes require, you know, very good leadership and leadership skills, leaders in different positions of power can really be a great catalyst in creating or leading social change, in creating teams or work environments where, you know social impact is achieved. What would you say are some of the qualities that you think are needed to be a good leader in this industry? To be effective and to, you know, face the challenges that exist?
Mikel: I think that the first thing would be to really be passionate about this work and be ready to face a lot of frustration. Frustration in the ground when dealing with different partners, frustration that can come from the relationship with the government and the national institutions. There is a lot of frustration because of the first quality that I was saying, no, the passion, you are very passionate. You want to see change but then the change doesn’t happen as fast as one expects or in the way that one expects. So then is when the frustration comes. But passion is really important to be able to inspire colleagues, to be able to inspire the rest of the team that the work that we do is worth it, that despite all the shortcomings and all the challenges it is worth to fight and work for a more just, fair, equal world where human rights are respected. Maybe this sounds a bit too much, like a sports event speech, but this is really that reality, it is a world where passion for these values and strong belief that human rights are really what should lay at the core of any government system or any state and government. That is really the core value that we all should have and that the leader needs to have and being able to inspire colleagues and being able to inspire the team on build trust. Build trust among all the different partners and the stakeholders that work together in this and these stakeholders are basically everyone — its the institutions, the parliaments, the government, the judiciary system, the security forces, stakeholders as well local organizations, the ones who work directly with the communities in the ground, the organizations that work in the defense of human rights as well as the international donors bringing the vision that they see for their country in line with the policies and the strategies of foreign governments. So I’m a great defender of multilateralism and I think that leaders need to really understand that collaboration, always collaboration is really the, in my opinion, the key to success. As you were asking me one of the previous questions, very often there is a lot of rivalry within different organizations that work in the same field in a given topic in a given country and that rivalry I really think this is the last thing that we need. Now we have to think of each other as really complimenting each other’s work and each other’s efforts. Only that way we can really achieve our goals, because in the end we want all of us, we want the same thing.
Safa: Absolutely. Yes, all the qualities you mentioned, they are so important and you, you express them so passionately. When you think about your own career and perhaps the people who have inspired you or have really influenced you, whether you know, it could have been a supervisor or perhaps it was ah, government partner or any other person, is their person or perhaps more than one person that comes to mind, and what did that person teach you or what behavior did they model that really influenced you?
Mikel: Yes, I will mention two people come to my mind straight away. One is the very first supervisor that I had when working with UNESCO, when I was in in in Jakarta. His name is Charaf Ahmimed and he really accompanied me in this first steps in the development human world. He really helped me to understand what was the nature of the work that we were doing, why it was worth it and he really taught me this thing, this quality, that I was mentioning over and over again before, this corporation that really we should think, how can we complement each other and try to work with different partners as much as we can, forget about these rivalries or jealousy between agencies, organizations and really work together, always approach every new challenge with an open mind and open arms because in the end it really pays off. It really pays off. The result is always much better than if one endeavor is addressed unilaterally by one single actor. Collaboration always is a plus. It is always a win win situation I would say. And here in Myanmar I have met so many inspiring journalists. There is one, especially, he is the chief editor of a news media house here in Myanmar, he is a great human rights defender. He spent 10 years in prison for a demonstration that he did once in defence of Aung Sang Su Ki when she was still in home arrest. He spent 10 years in prison. He just came out when the opening of the country started in 2012. He started his own media house. And despite all the challenges in the country, the harassment that many journalists still face in Myanmar, he really speaks out for human rights. When he told me once, when I see an injustice, when I see a human rights abuse situation, I can just not stop myself. I need to tell this story, I need to investigate, I need to tell the world this and I know that for what I say they might want to put me back in prison but I’m not afraid of that because I really believe in what I’m doing. So those words of this Myanmar journalist really inspired me and it really motivates me to continue doing the work that I’m doing here in Myanmar. Because, yes, I was saying for me, there might be a lot of frustration, but for him, the result of doing the work that he does might be going back to prison. So at the end of the day, these kind of people, really, that is so much at stake for them. So , even all the work that we can do is not even enough to really fulfill the — you see the value of the work that you are doing, and you see why it is worth to work so much and so forcefully on the area that we work, on development.
Safa: Right, wow as you say, there’s so much at stake and there’s really such a great need to keep going despite frustrations or set back and just continue. But when you think about ,you know, approaches or communication tools or, you know, you work a lot on freedom of expression and you work in terms of advocacy with government and using a human rights based approach, but besides that, are there any communications tools or new approaches or activities that you have come across that you think are really interesting? That should be shared more, that should be implemented more? Are there any new things that come to mind when you think about ways of approaching communication or media or access to information or any of these issues?
Mikel: Well, I think that we should start by really educating people. I think that we’ve been putting a lot of effort in working with the journalists to strengthen their capacities, in working with press councils and media self regulatory bodies in developing code of conducts, to get the highest standards, ethical standards in journalism, in working with the government, and policymakers to have the proper legislation in place. But especially in the current world where we live in, there has to be much more effort put in place to really educate media consumers and people in general in what is the role of the media? How do we approach media? How do we access information? How do we digest all the media and information that we get every day through our cell phones? We are seeing in so many cases, in so many countries, the really terrible effects of disinformation, of hate speech of the fake news. I don’t like to use that word, because if it’s fake, it’s not news, but of this fake news, as most of the people call them, disinformation in general, and really the focus should be put in the users, in people that consume this media every day. We should develop more this critical thinking, the way we access information, the way we read every day what is in the screens of our smartphones, the way that we interpret every video, every audio that we receive every day in our instant messaging and in our social media, more focus needs to be put in people, in the media consumers because at the end of the day, it’s also in their hands to demand the accountability from the media. So that is, I think, the main shift that we really have to put more focus on and what is really needed, in this more connected world. And another thing, not only applied to communication, freedom of expression and the media but also applied to development in general. I think that all of us, development workers, needs to put much more effort in learning more about the context that we are working in. We are so busy writing our reports, we are so busy developing new projects, interacting and talking with our partners, that it seems that we don’t have time to read more about the country that we are living in. I think that development workers, we really need to be a bit more anthropologists. We really need to understand much better, which are the values of the country. What is its history, which are its complexities, which is their vision of the world, of the work that we do. So I think that much more effort needs to be put by all development actors, everyone working in development, really, from the people that work in finance, administration, communication for people working in the programs, we need to understand much better the country that we live in. We need to read much more about its history, we need to read much more much more about its people to understand the way they behave, their attitudes, their values. So I think this is a critical area that very often is really overlooked.
Safa: Really understanding the local context and history and culture can be so important. But have you experienced, you know, cases of where, where the consequence of not knowing or not learning or not reading have been — I mean, what have been the consequences in your experience?
Mikel: Well I cannot think right now for specific examples that I might have faced. But what I can really say is that I’ve been living now in the Southeast Asia for almost nine years and I’ve been living in Myanmar for almost five years now and every single day, I continue learning and understanding things much more and much better than when I arrived for the first time five years ago and I see that many things that I did when I arrived, right now, I would do them in a completely different way. I’m not saying that before those things were, I didn’t do them well. But now I understand how those things can be done in a much better way. In a much more conflict sensitive way, in a much more appropriate and effective way for what this country really needs. So the complexities of a country, even if we say yes, it’s a very complex country, I’ve been reading journals, magazines about it for a long time before coming here, but there is always so much more then what we see in the first in the first place.
Safa: That’s so interesting, very important point that you brought up. Absolutely. But in terms of, you know, your focus has so far been on South Asia and some people in the international development sector, they really have a regional focus. What do you think are the of the benefits of, you know, having a career where you’re mostly in one region of the world, whereas as opposed to one where you you move frequently?
Mikel: Well I think that this is directly linked to what I was explaining before. I mean now I think I have quite good understanding of the — of course different countries are completely different contexts. But it is true that in the South East Asia there are some common values, common behaviors, common attitudes that you can find across the different countries and for me, where I see this benefit mostly is in the relationships with people. Because, I mean, I’m coming from a very far place from where I am right now, right? I’m fromSpain and it’s a very different context from the context here. The relationships, the way you address, deal with different partners, with government officials is completely different. And now after living this long in Southeast AsiaI feel very confident when I talk with partners. When, when I discuss ideas with partners, with government officials, because I feel I understand them better. I know how how to kind of guide the discussions, how to understand the way they share the ideas better. I remember at the very beginning when I moved to Jakarta, Indonesia, very often after having a meeting with government officials or even with a local organization, at the end of the meeting, I never really knew for sure if the meeting went well or if it went wrong. Even if you understand the words, even if you understand what is happening in the meeting, but you don’t really see, you don’t really read this second layer, between lines. That was really difficult at that time. Now I feel very confident.
Safa: You have such passion for your work and you’ve had such an interesting observations, that there’s a lot to learn from, so thank you so much for everything that you shared with us today.
Mikel: No, thank you Safa for your call and I’m happy because I really love the work that I do. I really believe in development work and also in the role that the UN plays. So I am always happy to share so that it is also better understood the work that we do every day and really the complexity of this career and this kind of work and the complexities also that we are dealing in this world that we live in. So I’m really happy to share to this.
Safa: Thank you so much. Yes absolutely I think that everything you mentioned really sheds a lot of light on - perhaps if some listeners who don’t work in this industry and are just curious about it, there’s so much they can learn by hearing from the points you made. And as you say, it’s very complex. But the value of people like you who are so committed and so passionate and really strongly believe in the work it’s infectious. So thank you so much.
Mikel: Thank you.
Safa: Thank you so much to our listeners. To keep up with our weekly podcast, you can subscribe on iTunes, Spotify and Google podcast platforms where you can also rate and review our episodes and share with friends. You can also follow us on instagram where our handle is @rethinkingdevelopment. If you have any listener questions that you would like me to ask any future guests, please feel free to email them to us. I look forward to continuing this conversation with you all. Until then, take care.
