3 1

The Rise and Fall of NWICOFrom a Vision of International Regulation to a Reality of

Multilevel Governance

ULLA CARLSSON

industrialized countries. “Development”, the processof evolution toward a modern society, occupiedcenter stage. Scholars and development experts as-signed mass communications a central role in the de-velopment process.

In the Cold War era the newly independentcountries of the third world were of strategic im-portance to both East and West. Development aidwas an important factor for “winning the hearts andminds” of developing countries. New patron-clientrelationships emerged; old, established ones evolv-ed. The successes achieved by the oil-producingcountries in OPEC in the 1970s strengthened theposition of the third world as a bargaining partner(albeit rising fuel prices had serious impacts onsome developing countries). In succeeding years, thethird world made its voice heard in internationalfora as never before, formulating programs for far-reaching reform. A set of demands that would resultin a New International Economic Order was put onthe agenda; demands for reform of existing patternsof news and information flows – in short: a new in-ternational infomation order – were soon to follow.But a new international information order, in thesense its authors intended, was not to be. Aftersome brief years of debate, the issue disappearedfrom international agendas.

The Purpose and Frame of Referenceof the StudyThis article summarizes the findings of an analysisof the rise and fall of the political move to bringabout a new world information and communicationorder. Now and again, the retrospective analysiscasts light on features of the present ‘world infor-mation order’.

Global flows of news and information were the sub-ject of intense debate in international fora in the1970s. News gathering and reporting has been con-troversial, both within nations and between nations,as long as mass media have existed, but never – nei-ther before nor since – have information flows beendebated with such passion as in the 1970s. TheUnited Nations, and UNESCO in particular, were theprime arenas where these issues were thrashed out.

In the decades immediately following the secondworld war, the media debate was mainly a protractedtrench battle in the Cold War, where the West ralliedaround the principle of “free flow of information”and the Eastern bloc iterated the need for state con-trol. Although this East-West dispute was by nomeans resolved in the 1960s, the situation changedwith the addition of a North-South dimension in the1970s. Besides the opening of a new front, the focusof the dispute was broadened to include flows ofother media products besides news, flows whichwere assuming increasing importance in internationalrelations. A new perspective on the principle of“free flow of information” came to light.

These developments had their roots in the dra-matic changes in world politics that took place in the1960s. Numerous colonies gained independence fromthe colonial metropoles. With independence came de-mands for recognition of the countries’ national sov-ereignty, not only in political terms, but economi-cally and culturally, as well. The undertones in thesedemands often harmonized with those of the Easternbloc. At the same time, the newly liberated countrieswere in dire need of development assistance from the

NORDICOM, Göteborg University, Box 713, SE405 30 Göteborg, ulla.carlsson@nordicom.gu.se

3 2

The study applies a holistic approach and testsalternative explanatory models in its exploration ofthe factors that precipitated the demand for aNWICO in the 1970s and the events and circum-stances that led to the issue’s subsidence and sub-sequent removal from international agendas. Moregeneral theories of development that recognize therole of media and mass communication in processesof socio-economic development and cultural andeconomic globalization guided the examination ofhow emerging media relate to communication sys-tems and policy objectives.1

The framework of the study is inspired by thework of Anthony Giddens, particularly his work ona social theory, and modernity. Giddens sees the so-cial structure as a dynamic entity that structures so-cial action while at the same time being constitutedthrough social action. As a consequence of thisview, no relationship between the media and soci-ety can be presumed a priori; rather, the relation-ship has to be explored in its historical context.Contextual factors are all-important (Giddens 1984;Hjarvard 2001). In Giddens’ view, the process ofglobalization follows from modernity; modernity isinherently globalizing. Four dimensions of moder-nity which tend toward globalization are identified:1. the development of world markets; 2. the rise ofthe nation-state system; 3. the emergence of mili-tary blocs; and 4. industrialization. Giddens empha-sizes the influence of communications technology asa factor in globalization and points out the key rolemedia culture plays (Giddens 1990).

The issue of a NWICO is intimately bound upwith global cold war politics. Three worlds weredistinguished, the ‘first’ and ‘second’ of which ad-vanced competing blueprints for how social lifeshould be organized in order to achieve ‘the goodsociety’. The ‘third’ world emerged with the libera-tion of former colonies. These countries were ‘un-derdeveloped’ and would now, with the help of ei-ther the capitalist or the socialist world, be ‘devel-oped’ into modern societies. This is not to say thatthe first and second worlds were equals, however.The interaction of the four dimensions of modernitymentioned above gave the West economic, politicaland military power which, at the time of the de-mands for a NWICO, could be described ashegemonic (cf. Giddens 1996:49-55). A belief thatthe world could be governed prevailed, and faith ininternational organizations like the United Nationsand UNESCO were yet unshaken. It was in thispoint in time and space that the demands for a newinternational information order were raised.

The StudyIn the following, the analysis of the rise and fall ofNWICO as an issue will be presented in six parts.First, we shall consider the context surrounding theNWICO issue. The seeds from which the demandfor a NWICO arose are to be found in the thinkingabout development that prevailed at the time of na-tional independence and the forum for debate thatUNESCO itself represented. Here we shall considerthe factors that contributed to the rise of the issue,drawing on the findings of a separate study of thefeasibility of regulating the media and communica-tions sectors on an international level.

The next three segments consider the concept ofa new international information order, its meaning,reactions to it, and the outcome and legacy of thedebate. Here, too, a number of extensive studieshave been undertaken. The contents and implica-tions of NWICO are characterized on the basis of asystematic analysis of the documents from meet-ings of the the non-aligned countries. Then we fol-low the progress of the issue on the internationalagenda with particular attention to the final reportof the MacBride Commission, as an expression ofan attempt to solve an international problem. Onestudy analyzed the ideas expressed in the proposalsof the Commission from a variety of standpoints.Thereafter, we consider the findings of an analysisof the debate about the Commission report inUNESCO and the resolution that resulted from it.In the sixth segment, we look for the reasons whythe demands failed; this part of the paper is basedon an analysis of the minutes of UNESCO GeneralConferences after 1980.

By way of conclusion, features of the presentworld information order are described against thebackground of the NWICO issue with respect to itsbearing on the globalization process, on media de-velopments in third world countries and, ultimately,on current thinking about development and the gov-ernance of the media system.

The Role of Mass Media in theDevelopment ProcessTwo Paradigms of DevelopmentThe issue of a new international information order isbound up with ideas about the role of communica-tion in the development of societies, on the onehand, and the relations between developed and de-veloping countries, on the other. The purpose of de-velopment is to improve the living conditions of the

3 3

members of a society. Development is at once aprocess and a goal. What is needed to bring aboutdevelopment, and what constitutes “better livingconditions” have been bones of contention eversince the days surrounding national independencefrom the colonial powers, starting in the late 1950s,and continuing into the 1970s.

National development arose as an issue in thewake of the second world war, and the issue madeits entry onto the international agenda in the 1950s.It was introduced by the USA, now a world powerand interested in exporting its model of society. TheMarshall Plan (economic and technical assistancefor the reconstruction of Europe), and the TrumanDoctrine (mutual defense against aggression bythird parties) played key roles in this regard. In ad-dition, there was the founding of the United Na-tions and its specialized agencies, among themUNESCO, the United Nations Economic, Social andCultural Organisation.

Initially, ‘development’ was mainly a questionof economic growth, i.e., a steady and lasting in-crease in productivity and per capita income. Therewas an unshaken faith in technology and ‘know-how’. Two different schools of thought developed.The more dominant of the two envisioned “thepassing of traditional society” (Lerner 1958), infavor of a modern, Western-style nation-state.Gradually, ‘development’ came to include political,social and cultural spheres, as well. The otherschool took its starting point in the model of social-ist societies in Eastern Europe, China and Cuba andaimed, with assistance from the Soviet Union, tocreate nation-states with planned economies. Here,the motor force was not the market, but politicaldecision-making.

These models of development coincided withthe emergence of nationalist movements in manycolonies in Asia and Africa. Modernism was part ofthe legacy of the colonial metropole, and the idea ofa nation-state met strong and widespread resistance.At independence, however, European models of thenation-state prevailed. The new countries were ingreat need of assistance to combat poverty, illit-eracy and unemployment. Concepts of develop-ment were therefore paramount in politics and theeconomic sphere.

Thus, the world of the 1960s was polarized alongtwo dimensions: capitalism vs communism, and de-veloped vs underdeveloped. These two dichotomiesproduce four worlds (Worsley 1984), but the thirdand fourth of these worlds, i.e., the underdevelopedcountries adhering to capitalist and communist/socia-list ideologies, respectively, melded and came to be

referred to as the ‘third world’. Their shared historyand social and economic situation were more domi-nant than any differences that may have arisen afterindependence. The countries of the third world wereall characterized by low degrees of industrialization,low per capita income, high rates of infant mortality,poor standard of public health, illiteracy, and extremeinequality. (Reeves 1993)

The development process became a prime focusin the contest to win the third world countries over.The role of mass media also assumed prominence inthis process, not least due to technological ad-vances. Scholars who have studied development inthe postwar period up to the 1970s have identifiedphenomena and precepts that form two separateparadigms of development:

• The modernization paradigm: theories relating tomodernization, political and economic develop-ment and technology transfer (Lerner 1958;McClelland 1961; Rogers 1962; Schramm 1964),and

• The dependence paradigm: theories relating toimperialism and underdevelopment and revolu-tion and liberation (Baran 1957; Dos Santos1970; Frank 1969; Galtung 1971).

Where the modernization school saw the problemsof developing countries as the result of characteris-tics inherent in the history of the territories, the de-pendence paradigm pointed to underdevelopment asthe result of capitalism and its expressions, coloni-alism and imperialism.

Ideology and Strategy

The concepts of ‘development’ and ‘communica-tion’ are both partly normative; they stand for de-sirable forms of social change. As a consequence themodernization and dependence paradigms are nor-mative. In the modernization paradigm, communica-tion is seen to facilitate or hasten progress toward amodern, as opposed to traditional, society. In thedependence paradigm, it is rather a question ofmedia imperialism. The modernization paradigm isessentially optimistic, whereas the dependenceparadigm is essentially pessimistic about develop-ment in the countries of the third world.

But the two paradigms also express ideologicalstandpoints, if by ideology we mean a system ofideas, political-economic, about the nature of theworld, what it should be, and how best to go aboutachieving the goal. Ideology consists, in otherwords, of the following components:

3 4

An ideology is a belief system by virtue of be-ing designed to serve on a relatively perma-nent basis a group of people to justify in reli-ance on moral norms and a modicum of fac-tual evidence and self-consciously rationalcoherence the legitimacy of the implementsand technical prescriptions which are to en-sure concerted action for the preservation, re-form, destruction or reconstruction of a givenorder. (Seliger 1976, s 120).

The Cold War polarized ideological debates into twocamps, a classical Liberal and a Marxist. The polari-zation is reflected in the two paradigms of develop-ment. Liberal features of the modernization paradigmare, for example, the norm of individual freedom and apreference for social change by consensus. The focusrests on the nation-state, and on internal dynamics inthe development process. The dependence paradigm,on the other hand, is well aligned with Marxisttheory, tending philosophically toward materialismand emphasizing social equality as a norm. Its ap-proach to society is essentially conflict-oriented, andanalyses focus on world capitalism as a system andon center-periphery dynamics in the developmentprocess. (cf. Tehranian 1994:282f)

The modernization paradigm was dominant inthe 1950s and 1960s, and the views that character-ize that paradigm largely coincide with the ap-proach to development, with a decided emphasis ondevelopment assistance, that was embraced by theUN and UNESCO at that time. But when expo-nents of the dependence paradigm, who were criti-cal of the modernization approach, demanded achange in policy in the 1960s, it marked the start ofa ‘war of ideas’ in the international arena. In fora

like the UN and UNESCO, each national repre-sentative had access to the floor and could air hisviews. It was here that the non-aligned statesformed an alliance to demand a new international in-formation order.

Thus, it was these two competing paradigms ofdevelopment and their ideological components thatconstituted the fundaments for the ideas expressedin the debate on a new international information andcommunication that took place on the internationalplane, namely, in UNESCO.

UNESCO:International Arena for Issues Relatingto Information and CommunicationBackgroundThe concept of “free flow of information” was for-mulated in the USA in the final throes of the secondworld war. No national frontiers should be allowedto hinder the flow of information between coun-tries. Before the war, Europe and the USA hadshared control over the international news market.The USA was, however, excluded from the exten-sive territories under the control of colonial powersGreat Britain and France, who controlled the flowsof information in their colonies.

Even while the war was still raging, it was ap-parent that the USA would emerge from it as aworld power. The U.S. saw before them a worldwithout colonial ties, a world that lay open for anexpansive economy in the U.S. The information sec-tor was a key factor in paving the way for economicexpansion. People everywhere were tired of thepropaganda and censorship that were part of the

Figure 1. Features of the Modernization and Dependency Paradigms

Modernization1. Western societies as a model – emphasis on economic growth2. Causes of underdevelopment inherent in the countries themselves3. Focus on the nation-state4. Emphasis on individual freedoms5. Mass media accorded a central role in the development process6. Vertical pattern of communication – from the elite to the people.

Dependence1. World systems perspective – development defined in terms of center and periphery2. Underdevelopment ascribed to the industrialized capitalist powers of the West3. Information gaps – underdevelopment in the periphery is prerequisite to development in the center4. The mass media reinforce the dominance of the metropole over its satellites5. A country in the periphery must strive for self-reliance and liberation from the world system6. Emphasis on social equality.

3 5

war effort and welcomed the thought of ‘free flows’warmly. The idea of a ‘free flow of information’was spread over the world.

Newspaper publishers in the U.S. and representa-tives of the news agencies Associated Press (AP) andUnited Press (UP) traveled around the world, preach-ing the gospel of ‘free flow’. It was particularly im-portant to win support for the concept in the UnitedNations and especially its specialized agency,UNESCO. Thus, UNESCO came to be the mainarena in which information and communication issueswere debated in the postwar period.

In the following we shall particularly considerUNESCO’s norm-setting function. Different ap-proaches to formulating the principles of a NWICOare identified on the basis of a study of pertinent in-ternational law. The results of this study in turnform the starting point for an analysis of the total-ity of international agreements in the field of infor-mation and communication that relate to the juridi-cal status of information and communication as ob-jects of regulation.

Three RolesUNESCO is often associated with development as-sistance, and in its first years the organization wasindeed primarily an aid organ. There was a greatneed for reconstruction within UNESCO’s sphereof activity after the war, and UNESCO did what itcould to muster expertise and funding for the recon-struction effort. The emphasis on material assist-ance was reinforced when colonies began to freethemselves from colonial metropoles and becamenations in their own right. UNESCO, like the UN asa whole, came to be regarded as a system for thetransfer of resources from rich countries to poorcountries.

The assistance UNESCO provided in the 1950sand 1960s was guided to a large extent by the faithAmerican researchers had in the positive role massmedia played in the development process, not least inpromoting literacy. (Lerner 1958; Rogers 1962;Schramm 1964) UNESCO assistance mainly focusedon technology transfer, both hardware (e.g., printingpresses and broadcasting transmitters) and software(radio and TV programs). It was UNESCO’s goal toensure that every country had at least 10 copies of adaily newspaper, 5 radio receivers, 2 television setsand 2 cinema seats per thousand inhabitants.

A second major role for UNESCO was fact-find-ing. UNESCO collaborates with numerous organi-zations and arranges meetings and conferences on a

variety of subjects. These result in books and re-ports. UNESCO is one of the largest publishinghouses in the world. Innumerable reports the fieldof mass communications have been issued, with amarked peak in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Thevolumes report research findings, current thinkingand opinion pieces, conference proceedings, andstatistical compendia. This role doubtless contrib-uted to UNESCO’s becoming the principal arena ofdebate concerning systems of information and com-munication between nations and regions of theworld.

Finally, UNESCO also has a norm-setting func-tion that is founded in international law. Like manyother bodies within the United Nations organiza-tion, UNESCO drafts and adopts internationalagreements between member nations. Whereas nei-ther UNESCO nor any other UN body is investedwith legislative powers, they have been instrumen-tal in bringing about numerous international agree-ments. Today, the UN institutions have acquiredsuch stature that they tend more and more to beconsidered legal entities. (Eek 1979; Eek et al.1987;Gross 1979) The UN Charter contains clauses thatrequire member nations to observe the Charter’s le-gal force and to adapt national legislation accord-ingly (Article 104). Thus, procedures for buildingup a body of law have been elaborated within theUN system. A certain interplay between the UNGeneral Assembly and, for example, the UNESCOGeneral Conference may be observed. Issues arediscussed within UNESCO and are then forwardedto the mother organization and the General Assem-bly. Flows in the opposite direction also occur.

Some documents in international law have bind-ing force for the signatories, and each must adoptand ratify the agreement individually. Most suchdocuments are either treaties or conventions.UNESCO and similar institutions are highly instru-mental in bringing such documents into the world.The Charters of the United Nations and UNESCOare, for that matter, examples of such treaties.

Declarations and resolutions lack the bindingforce of a treaty. Nonetheless, they are of juridicalsignificance, playing a major role in the developmentof international law in, for example, the preliminarywork on treaties and conventions. Declarations havehigher rank than resolutions, and declarations andresolutions adopted by the UN General Assemblyrank higher than declarations and resolutions adoptedby specialized agencies like UNESCO. (Eek 1979)The term ‘declaration’ applies to documents, thepurpose of which is to establish legal principles; in

3 6

formal respects a declaration is similar to a conven-tion. A resolution sets out policy for the organiza-tion that adopts it. A resolution may subsequentlyevolve into a document of international law. Re-searchers are agreed, however, that both resolutionsand declarations adopted by the UN General Assem-bly must be taken into account when determiningwhether a given principle of international relations isto be considered part of the body of international law(Eek et al. 1987).

From the start, both the UN and UNESCO havehad an explicit commitment to norm-setting in thefield of information and communication. The stat-utes of both organizations contain injunctions to actto protect and promote freedom of expression andfreedom of information. Article 1.2 of the UNESCOConstitution states, for example:

... collaborate in the work of advancing themutual knowledge and understanding of peo-ples through all means of mass communica-tion and to that end, recommend such inter-national agreements as may be necessary topromote the free flow of ideas by word orimage.

This commitment was acted on as early as 1948,when the United Nations convened an internationalconference on information. International law in thearea of information and mass media started with thefounding of the UN and UNESCO. From the start,the work on information and the media was closelyrelated to the organizations’ work on human rights.A rapid pace of technological development in com-munications raised the need for international regula-tion, e.g., with respect to the use of space for com-munications satellites. As a consequence, informa-tion issues were politicized, a development that hada significant impact on UNESCO’s subsequentwork relating to the sector.

In its early years UNESCO experienced obvioustensions and some friction between industrializedand developing countries. The former emphasizedUNESCO’s norm-setting function, whereas devel-oping countries emphasized the organization’s as-sistance programs. Development assistance was di-rectly related to the development process aspracticed according to the modernization paradigm.Thus, it was natural in the late 1960s and early1970s for critics of the modernization paradigm tovoice their criticisms in connection with discussionsof assistance. It was, however, UNESCO’s norm-setting function that subsequently provided thevenue for discussions of the principles of a new in-ternational information order.

International Agreements Relating toInformation and Communication 1945-1979

International agreements, treaties-conventions, dec-larations and resolutions relating to information andcommunication that were adopted by the UN Gen-eral Assembly and UNESCO General Conferencesmake up an important part of any history of thestrivings for a new international information order.No less than 41 conventions and declarations (andsix nearly completed drafts) saw the light of day inthe postwar period up to 1980. They focus on thelegal status of various elements in mass communica-tion and specify objects for regulation on a multi-lateral basis. They may be seen as attempts to es-tablish a certain order concerning the roles of infor-mation in the international political system. Astudy of the many documents allows us to takereadings of power relationships and the views on in-formation and communication that prevailed atgiven points throughout the 35-year period.

More precisely, the 41 documents compriseeight treaties and conventions, six declarations and27 resolutions. Two out of three were adopted bythe General Assembly. It was not until the 1970sthat UNESCO made its debut as a setter of norms.The texts deal with seven topics: rights andfreedoms with regard to information; free flow ofinformation; communications satellites (regulationof media uses); development of third world coun-tries; peace-security-propaganda; discrimination;and a new world information and communicationorder. The largest number of agreements wereadopted in the areas of rights and freedoms, peace-security-propaganda, development of third worldcountries, and free flow of information.

The documents issuing from the United Nationstend to focus on international legal aspects, whereasthe resolutions emanating from UNESCO tend to fo-cus on measures intended to promote a free flow ofinformation. Three conventions have their origins inagreements arrived at during the period: the Declara-tion of Human Rights of 1948 led to two conven-tions in 1966; a resolution on “false and distorted re-ports” was incorporated into the convention on “in-ternational right of correction”; and resolutions onpeaceful uses of outer space in 1961 and 1962 wereincorporated into a declaration in 1963 and, ulti-mately, the Outer Space Treaty of 1967.

Major efforts were made in the 1940s and 1950sto bring a convention on freedom of informationinto being, but agreement on the issue remained outof reach. On the whole, however, we see the rudi-

3 7

ments of a body of international law pertaining toinformation and communication emerging during theperiod.

One may also classify the agreements chrono-logically:

• 1945-1959: freedom of information and develop-ment assistance

• 1960-1969: new communications technologyprompts regulation

• 1970-1979: prevailing principles are challenged.

Many of the documents contain elements that por-tend the subsequent demand for a New World Infor-mation and Communication Order.

1945-1959: Freedom of Information andDevelopment AssistanceIssues relating to freedom of information and ‘freeflows’ of information predominated in early years.The concerns were mentioned in the Charters ofboth the United Nations and UNESCO. Both issuesare expressions of the East-West confrontationknown as the Cold War, which of course obstructedprogress in the area, despite numerous draft con-ventions. Development assistance to third worldcountries and the evils of propaganda received a lotof attention in this context.

The agreements that were reached in these yearswere imbued with the views of the industrialized,primarily Western, parts of the world. Two factorsexplain this. The UN had 50 charter members,UNESCO had 20. This clearly influenced the norm-settting function. Secondly, if it is surprising thatsuch documents as the treaties of Beirut (1948) andFlorence (1950) on the free flow of informationcould have originated in UNESCO, we should recallthat the Soviet Union did not participate inUNESCO until 1954.

1960-1969: New CommunicationsTechnology Prompts Calls for RegulationThe decade witnessed significant developments incommunications technology, particularly communi-cations satellites. There was a widely perceivedneed to regulate the technology on an internationalplane. In the span of seven years, the General As-sembly was able to adopt two resolutions, a decla-ration and, finally, a treaty on the use of outerspace. Issues relating to satellites also gave rise toheated debates relating to the free flow of informa-tion between East and West in UNESCO in the late1960s, but without resulting in an agreed document.

The UN extended its role as aid donor vis-à-visthe poor countries of the world. The documents areformulated from the wealthy countries’ perspec-tive. Another issue that surfaced during this periodwas racial discrimination; a convention on ‘theelimination of all forms of racial discrimination’ wasadopted in 1965. All seven texts from this periodwere adopted by the UN General Assembly.

1970-1979: New Perspectives andChallenges to Prevailing PrinciplesThe principle of ‘free flow’ was debated more andmore. The world had changed quite dramaticallysince the end of the war. Many former colonieswere now independent nations. In the span ofroughly a decade in the 1950s and 1960s no lessthan 85 countries were born. The fledgling nationswere anxious to protect their national and culturalsovereignty, which represented a new perspectiveon the issue of free flows of information. Mean-while, new technology – not least satellite commu-nication – changed the nature of world communica-tion itself. The 1972 UNESCO General Conferenceadopted a resolution proposed by the Soviet Unionon setting out Guiding Principles on the Use of Sat-ellite-Broadcasting for the Free Flow of Informa-tion, the Spread of Education and Greater CulturalExchange. The vote was 55 in favor and 7 opposed,with 22 abstentions. The USA, which opposed theresolution, found itself outvoted. Thereafter, the fo-cus of the debate in UNESCO shifted to media andcultural imperialism and its consequences. The de-bate swelled and may be said to have preoccupiedUNESCO through the 1970s. In this period, theWest frequently found itself in the minority asnewly independent nations often sided with theEastern bloc.

The UN and UNESCO produced four declara-tions and sixteen resolutions during the period.Nearly half of them emanated from UNESCO Gen-eral Conferences, a testimony to the emergence ofthe organization as a forum in the area of informa-tion and mass communication. No treaties or con-ventions were forthcoming, however. The Cold Warcontinued, but was modified on some issues by anew North-South dialogue. West and East were nolonger the only actors on the stage. Representativesfrom developing countries coordinated their activi-ties and were able to influence both the content ofdocuments and agreements and the number of agree-ments reached. Seven of altogether nine resolutionson development in third-world countries between1945 and 1979 were adopted in the 1970s.

3 8

‘Decolonialization’, in both political-juridical andeconomic and cultural senses, had supplanted ‘de-velopment assistance’ as the focus of debate. Inother words, earlier documents were seriously chal-lenged. New principles and views were put on theagenda. The confrontations were innumerable, par-ticularly in the work on a mass media declaration,which after much anguish, was adopted in 1978.This work on media issues occupied UNESCOnearly a decade.

In early 1974, UNESCO’s Director-Generalcalled on twelve experts to put together a prelimi-nary draft of a declaration on mass media, more pre-cisely, a Declaration on Fundamental Principlesconcerning the Contribution of the Mass Media toStrengthening Peace and International Understand-ing, to the Promotion of Human Rights and toCountering Racialism, Apartheid and Incitement toWar. The aim was to formulate overall guidelines forthe role of mass media in the international system.

When the draft came up for discussion in theFall, the confrontation between the USA’s commit-ment to ‘free flow of information’ and the SovietUnion’s commitment to state control came to ahead. At the same time, several of the developingcountries criticized the concept of ‘free flow’, char-acterizing it instead as a ‘one-way flow’ and an ex-pression of imperialist ambitions. Here, the East-West conflict was displaced by a confrontation be-tween North and South. Treatment of the Declara-tion on Fundamental Principles was postponed.

Efforts were also made to establish the conceptof a ‘right to communicate’. The idea was to estab-lish an overarching principle, under which problemsrelating to mass media might be analyzed and cor-rective measures proposed. Sweden introduced theconcept, coined in 1969 by Jean d’Arcy of Francein the context of new communications technology, atthe UNESCO General Conference of 1974. Afterlengthy discussion and numerous amendments aresolution on the ‘right to communicate’ wasadopted.

The General Conference of 1976 also failed toproduce a declaration on mass media. At one pointseveral Western delegates left the meeting in pro-test. Newly appointed Director-General Ahmadou-Mahtar M’Bow was instructed to work out andpresent a revised draft to the next General Confer-ence, in 1978. Mr. M’Bow worked hard to formu-late an acceptable draft, as the impasse had broughtnearly all other work at UNESCO to a halt, but thedraft proved unacceptable to most member coun-tries as it included an argument for state influenceover the media. The draft went into committee and

emerged in a markedly diluted version that could, fi-nally, be adopted. The feature of the resolution wasa frank qualification of ‘free flow of information’;the phrase was replaced with “a free flow and awider and better balanced dissemination of informa-tion”. The resolution also affirmed that the GeneralConference was

[c]onscious of the aspirations of thedeveloping countries for the establishment ofa new, more just and more effective worldinformation and communication order(Declaration on Fundamental PrinciplesConcerning the Contribution of the MassMedia to Strengthening Peace and Interna-tional Understanding, to the Promotion ofHuman Rights and to Countering Racialism,Apartheid and Incitement to War, 28th No-vember 1978, UNESCO, Paris).

Thus, the decade ended with documented accept-ance of a fundamental rethinking of the principles togovern information and communication on an inter-national plane.

When third world countries lodged their demandfor a new international information order in the in-ternational arena, it was in the light of the roleUNESCO played as a source of development as-sistance and as a setter of norms in the economic,social and cultural sectors. UNESCO was an instru-ment in a concerted reform effort. At the same time,the developing countries were dependent onUNESCO’s assistance, for literacy training, educa-tion and development of the media sector. Thequestion presents itself: What exactly did a ‘new in-formation order’ mean? What did the third worldhope to achieve?

Third World Countries’ Demand for aNew International Information OrderThe Non-Aligned Countriesa Motor ForceThe non-aligned countries tabled their demand for anew international information order in the mid-1970s as an extension of already voiced demands fora new world economic order. Although the non-aligned countries could hardly be considered a unitin terms of ideology or political-economic systemsand as a group had leanings toward both of the ma-jor blocs, they maintained a remarkably united frontin relation to the NWICO issue.

The geopolitical changes that took place in the1950s and 1960s when many former colonies at-

3 9

tained their independence led to the emergence of athird force alongside the capitalist (‘first world’)and socialist (‘second world’) blocs. The concept ofa ‘third world’ was coined in 1955 at the milestoneBandung Conference (Indonesia) of some thirtyAsian and African states. The conference adoptedseveral resolutions of historical significance: on theabolition of colonial rule, on the realization ofdemocratic self-determination, on disarmament, andon economic and cultural cooperation. The BandungConference was the first joint manifestation under-taken by the new countries of Africa and Asia, andfrom it issued a movement of non-aligned countriesthat aspired to be ‘a third force to act as a bufferbetween capitalism and communism’ (Sing & Gross1984:446).

What the non-aligned countries meant by a ‘newinternational information order’ can be extractedfrom the documentation of the movement’s meet-ings from the period between 1973-1980.2 Thedocuments from the meetings that concern informa-tion and communication have the character of po-litical ‘position statements’; they resemble state-ments of foreign policy and doctrine that we find inthe field of international politics. They are general-ized (as opposed to specific), declare a definitepoint of view or posture in relation to the issue athand, and an explicit world-view. At the same time,the statements form a sort of bridge between ideol-ogy and concrete action. It is sometimes difficult todiscern specific policy objectives, guiding princi-ples concerning how to go about realizing those ob-jectives, or proposed solutions. What we have towork with are discussions of the role of mass mediaand information in the development process, na-tional media structures and media policies versus in-ternational media structures and international regu-lations/policies, which touch on regional aspectsand flows of media products as well as the third-world countries’ relations with the industrializedpart of the world.

Critique and DemandsThe non-aligned countries discussed issues relatingto mass media for the first time at their conferencein Algiers in 1973, i.e., some years before they for-mulated and raised their demand for a new interna-tional information order. That the demand for re-form of the world communications system arose outof the non-aligned camp was hardly sheer chance. Aprime factor was the tumultuous change that wastaking place in the world oil market. Oil flowed pri-

marily from the third world to the industrial world,and the prosperity of the industrialized world de-pended heavily on the third world. Still, companiesbased in the USA, Great Britain and The Nether-lands controlled the world oil market. All thischanged (albeit not permanently) when the third-world countries whose oil reserves were exploitedbegan to act in concert. The ‘OPEC Crisis’ or ‘FuelCrisis’ of 1973, which brought a sharp rise in theprice of petroleum products, broke a position ofnear-total dominance that the USA had enjoyed forover a century and won the non-aligned countries anunprecedented bargaining position (Bjereld 1989,Karlsson 1993). The countries of the third worldhad already voiced demands for a new world eco-nomic order at the start of the decade. It was intheir interests to reform the structural factors thatcaused economic imbalances and injustices in the in-ternational system, yet up to now the countries hadnot been able to coordinate their efforts. Only afterthe success of OPEC (Organisation of Petroleum-Exporting Countries) and with the acquisition ofgreater diplomatic finesse were they able to formand maintain a more or less united front (cf.Bartelson & Ringmar 1985).

In 1974, the United Nations adopted The Decla-ration on the Establishment of a New InternationalEconomic Order. In it, the prevailing order wascharacterized as one of “inequality domination, de-pendence, narrow self-interest and segmentation,”whereas the new order would be founded on theprinciples of “equality, sovereign quality, inter-de-pendence, common interest and cooperation amongstates, irrespective of their economic and social sys-tems” (Declaration on the Establishment of a NewInternational Economic Order, 1st May 1974, NewYork). The declaration may be seen as a frontalideological challenge to the status quo, that was gen-erally termed ‘liberal’ (in a classical sense). A newinternational economic order presumed a reorganiza-tion of the international economic system (Ellingsen& Tunold 1984). National independence from thecolonial powers was a strictly political-juridicalmatter; it was with the demand for a new economicorder that the countries called attention to the neo-colonialism of the prevailing world economic sys-tem and demanded reform (Blomström & Hettne1981). In practice, the countries demanded fairterms of trade, economic assistance, and access toWestern technology.

Information was first brought up in the contextof a ‘new international order’ at a meeting of thenon-aligned countries in Tunis in 1976:

4 0

Since information in the world shows adisequilibrium favouring some and ignoringothers, it is the duty of non-aligned countriesand other developing countries to change thissituation and obtain the de-colonization ofinformation and initiate a new internationalorder in information ... . (Report of theCommittee, The Non-Aligned Symposium onInformation, Tunis, 1976)

At a minister-level conference some months later inNew Delhi, the Ministers of Information of thenon-aligned countries put it this way:

The Conference ... stressed that the de-colonization of information is essential for thesepurposes and that the establishment of a NewInternational Order for Information is as ne-cessary as the New International EconomicOrder. ... (Declaration of the MinisterialConference of Non-Aligned Countries on De-colonization of Information, New Delhi, 1976)

The demand for a new international information or-der was an outgrowth of third-world resentment ofthe imbalances in international news flows, as sum-marized in the phrase, ‘one-way-flow’; the lack of re-spect for third-world peoples’ cultural identity thatsuch imbalances reflected, the monopoly positions oftransnational communications corporations, whichwere perceived as a threat to the countries’ nationalindependence; and the inequitable distribution ofcommunications resources in the world. These com-plaints were hardly new, but having achieved nation-hood, the countries could now act to protect their na-tional sovereignty and cultural identity.

Numerous academic studies carried out in the1970s confirmed these complaints. News flows be-tween the industrialized parts of the world and de-veloping countries, or as many expressed it, be-tween north and south, were far from balanced. In-ternational systems of communication were de-signed to serve the interests of the industrializedcountries, and developing countries had no alterna-tive but to use them. A handful of transnational cor-porations controlled the markets for news and com-munications technology. National media systems inthe developing countries were poorly developed;many were state-controlled. Generally speaking, themedia were weak and could neither supply theirown countries with national news nor gather newsfrom abroad. As a consequence, they were heavilydependent on international news services. The newsthese services carried was primarily commerce-ori-ented or reported events of a transient nature in per-

sonalized and dramatized renditions. (Nordenstreng& Varis 1974; Bishop 1975; Harris 1976; Varis &Jokelin 1976; Höhne 1977, Tunstall 1977; Boyd-Barret 1980; i.a.)

‘The Four Ds’The documents relating to mass media and informa-tion that emanated from the meetings of non-alignedcountries in the latter part of the 1970s indicate thatthe concept of a new international information(later also communication) order implied far-reach-ing reforms of the existing order, including all kindsof information – political, social, economic andtechnical; all the media – press, radio, TV, böcker,film, data banks, etc.; and all kinds of communica-tions technology: communications satellites, cable-TV, telecommunications, including the price and ratecontrol. That is to say, the proposals covered farmore than content and the direction of flows and ex-tended well into the organization and control ofstructures in the sector.

Four cornerstones emerge out of the material;they were referred to as ‘the four Ds’ (cf.Nordenstreng 1984). They represent themes thatrecur time and again in the discussions of the neworder. 1. News flows are castigated as “one-wayflows”, and measures to ensure a more equitablebalance of news flows between countries are de-manded (Democratization). 2. The ‘one-way flow’and misrepresentations are interpreted to reflect alack of respect for the countries’ cultural identities,a matter of great importance to the non-alignedcountries (Decolonization). 3. The monopoly statusof transnational corporations in terms of communi-cations technology is perceived as a threat to na-tional independence (Demonopolization). 4. The vi-tal role of mass media in the development processis underlined, and the non-aligned countries join to-gether to demand a more just distribution of com-munication resources in the world (Development).Thus, the demands were broad and fluid and partlyoverlapping; they describe different aspects of theproblem complex.

Several of the documents of the non-alignedcountries contain lists of recommendations as tohow the countries should go about their work, onnational, regional and international levels, to achievea new information order. A systematic study of thedocuments in relation to ‘the four Ds’ reveals theimplications of the new international informationorder, from the point of view of the non-alignedcountries.

4 1

1. DemocratizationThis first cornerstone is the most comprehensive.Four central demands can be discerned:

The right of people and individuals to acquire anobjective picture of reality by means of accurateand comprehensive information as well as to ex-press themselves freely through various mediaof culture and communication.

The right of every nation to participate, on thegovernmental and non-governmental level, in theinternational exchange of information under fa-vourable conditions in a sense of equality, jus-tice and mutual advantage.

The responsibility of various actors in the proc-ess of information for its truthfulness and objec-tivity as well as for the particular social objec-tives to which the information activities arededicated.

Guarantees for and the necessary protection ofjournalists and other factors of information inthe performance of their mission, and the re-sponsibility of journalists in the performance ofthis mission.

These four points are closely related to the then on-going debates in UNESCO on ‘free flow of informa-tion’ and the conditions under which journalists op-erated. They are phrased with reference to the inter-national situation, while democratization on the na-tional level is largely glossed over.

2. DecolonializationThe second cornerstone consists of two subthemes.First, we have passages that highlight self-determi-nation, national independence, cultural identity, andso forth:

The fundamental principles of international law,notably self-determination, sovereignty and non-interference.

The right of every nation to protect its nationalsovereignty and cultural identity.

The right of each country to the observance ofits interests, aspirations, and its political, moraland cultural values.

These texts refer to international law, and some con-cepts resemble the rhetoric of the dependence para-digm. Cultural identity is also assigned key impor-tance.

Second, we have themes that invoke the demandfor a new world economic order. Here, too, the rheto-

ric is reminiscent of the dependence paradigm. Inmore concrete terms, it has to do with the assignmentof radio frequencies, access to frequencies ongeostationary satellites, and telecommunications in-frastructure.

3. DemonopolizationThe third cornerstone refers to another prime topicof debate in UNESCO of the 1970s, namely, theoperations of transnational corporations:

The right of every nation to develop its own in-dependent information system, in particular byregulating the activities of transnational corpora-tions.

This item might well have been included under thepreceding heading, but the emphasis put on‘demonopolization’ in the documents merits aheading of its own. That emphasis also reflects thedegree of influence the dependence paradigm ex-erted. The issue was discussed both on the interna-tional level, through the demand for a new worldeconomic order, and on the national level, throughproposed regulation of transnational corporations inthird-world countries.

4. DevelopmentCentral features of the fourth cornerstone are thefollowing three items:

The right of every nation to develop its own in-dependent information system.The imperative of a more equitable distributionof information media.Adequate professional training for journalists in-cluding those working in indigenous languages.

The documents are most specific in relation to thistheme. Here we find numerous exhortations directedto the industrialized countries: “adoption of na-tional communication policies,” “define a new con-cept of news not based on sensationalism...,” “mul-tiply exchange agreements among the countries ofthe third world,” “consolidate and develop the in-frastructures of information,” “promote nationalagencies and POOL,” “creation of regional informa-tion systems,” “creation of centres for the trainingof journalists in the developing countries,” etc.

Key elements are the necessity of national com-munication policy, the development of infrastruc-tures, the establishment of national news servicesand regional news exchanges, journalism education,technical collaboration between regions and, notleast, a will to “use horizontal cooperation, aid and

4 2

solidarity between developing countries as the maininstrument of the independence in information”.Mass media, news media in particular, and most ofall the press, are accorded a central role in the devel-opment process. The measures mentioned in thedocuments all refer to conditions in the third world,but the question acquires international scope be-cause of the countries’ need of development assist-ance from international organizations and the devel-oped countries:

... the obligation of the international organ-izations to assist the non-aligned countriestowards the emancipation and developmet oftheir national information systems ...

All in all, the content of a NWICO is formulated onthe level of abstractions. The demands are notspecified beyond a few key sentences under eachcornerstone. This reflects how difficult the coun-tries found it to agree on concrete measures. Yet thedocuments leave no doubt that the goal is a trulynew international information order. Decolonia-lization is paramount and, ultimately, radicalchanges in global power relationships are implied.

Many of the themes are formulated on themacro level. We find many more references to “theright of every nation” (national sovereignty, self-de-termination, cultural identity, relations between na-tions) than to individual rights and freedoms. Issuesrelating to mass media and news flows take priorityover other forms of communication. A number ofproblems are elevated to the international level, al-though they actually concern issues of a nationalcharacter. They are discussed in an internationalcontext. The key passages noted here clearly indi-cate the desired direction: a rejection of the mod-ernization paradigm in favor of self-determination,national independence, cultural identity and demo-cratic flows of information between nations.

Thus, the documents of the non-aligned nationsrepresent the contours of a new third view of devel-opment, having four main principles: 1. Develop-ment based on self-determination and cultural iden-tity, 2. The recipient’s control over developmentasistance, 3. International perspectives, and 4. Re-gional cooperation.

UNESCO and the Demand for a NewInternational Information OrderThe MacBride CommissionThe demand of the non-aligned countries for a newinternational information order in UNESCO brought

tensions to a head at the organization’s GeneralConference in 1976, where the formulation of a dec-laration on mass media topped the agenda. The non-aligned bloc were partly successful, but no declara-tion was forthcoming from the conference. Instead, acommission, The International Commission for theStudy of Communication Problems, known as the‘MacBride Commission’, was appointed to studyall manner of problems of communication in theworld. One of its chief tasks was to

analyse communication problems, in theirdifferent aspects, within the perspective of theestablishment of a new international econo-mic order and of the measures to be taken tofoster the institution of a “new world informa-tion order”. (UNESCO Work Plan for 1977-1978, 19C/5 Approved § 4155)

This marked the start of a new phase in the interna-tional discussion of mass media and information is-sues. It would turn out to be of decisive importancefor their treatment in UNESCO. Also, the appoint-ment of the Commission represents at least someacceptance of the challenge to the status quo on thepart of the international political system.

UNESCO used the concept of a “world informa-tion order” rather than an “international informationorder”. The change in wording was made on the ini-tiative of the Western countries, who wished tomake the connection to the demand for a new eco-nomic order less explicit. The word “international”connotes relations among nations, whereas “world”prompts associations to global cooperation moregenerally, with concepts like “the global village” and“world government” (Rosenau 1969, Holsti 1967).

Director-General M’Bow formulated the Com-mission’s brief or terms of reference in four points:

(a) to study the current situation in the fields ofcommunication and information and to identifyproblems which call for fresh action at the na-tional level and a concerted, overall approach atthe international level. The analysis of the stateof communication in the world today, and par-ticularly of information problems as a whole,should take account of the diversity of socio-economic conditions and levels and types of de-velopment;

(b) to pay particular attention to problems relatingto the free and balanced flow of information inthe world, as well as the specific needs of devel-oping countries, in accordance with the deci-sions of the General Conference;

4 3

(c) to analyse communication problems, in their dif-ferent aspects, within the perspective of the es-tablishment of a new international economic orderand of the measures to be taken to foster the in-stitution of a ‘new world information order’;

(d) to define the role which communication mightplay in making public opinion aware of the majorproblems besetting the world, in sensitizing it tothese problems and helping gradually to solvethem by concerted action at the national and inter-national levels. (Many Voices, One World, p 42)

As noted in the Commission report, the nominationof its members was “guided by the demands of plu-ralism and the need for unity and homogeneity; bythe need to ensure the experience and qualifications,involvement of currents and thoughts, intellectualtrends, cultural traditions, and the diversity of eco-nomic and social systems in the major regions of theworld” (Many Voices, One World, p 295).

The Commission was chaired by Irish politician,diplomat and Nobel laureate Sean MacBride. Thecomposition of the commission aroused much dis-cussion from the start.3 Only one of the countriesinvited to participate declined the invitation,namely, China. The individuals were chosen on thebasis of personal merits and would represent onlythemselves. Six of them, however, were politiciansof national stature, and five others were active inpolitics. It is likely that these members may have re-garded themselves as representatives of their re-spective countries. Three of the Commission wereacademics; two had been imprisoned for their views.

The MacBride Commission also engaged anumber of external scholars and experts to producespecialized reports on aspects of the Commission’swork. Nothing like this on this scale had ever hap-pened before. The studies ranged from conceptualanalyses to statistical compendia, surveys of na-tional media legislation, and bibliographies. Theywere reported in roughly 100 publications. Thus,the MacBride Commission had a major impact onscholarship pertaining to international communica-tion, as well.

A group of people were asked to define the con-cept of ‘a new international information order’, andthe definitions were published in the commission’sreport series. Dutch communication researcher CeesHamelink, wrote, for example:

Information as a national resource is a liber-ating force in the economic and cultural eman-cipation of a country, if its exploitation is

guided by the principles upon which a newordering of international economic relationsis based (Hamelink 1979, p 6).

Hamelink defined a new international informationorder as:

an international exchange of information inwhich states, which develop their cultural sy-stem in an autonomous way and with completesovereign control of resources, fully andeffectively participate as independent membersof the international community (Hamelink1979, p 8).

Many of the other definitions solicited by theMacBride Commission were quite in line with CeesHamelink’s proposal, which in turn paralleled thearguments advanced by the non-aligned countries.

The Report of the MacBride CommissionThe phrase, “new world information order”, whichwas used in the terms of reference of the MacBrideCommission, was rather short-lived withinUNESCO, being used only two years. In the finaltext of the mass media declaration that was adoptedin 1978, the wording is “a new, more just and effec-tive world information and communication order”.One migh interpret the change as a further adapta-tion to the position of the Western countries in thatthe new wording may be taken to mean not a totallynew order, but an improvement of the status quoante. The addition of “communication” may be seenas an attempt to encourage thinking about informa-tion flows, etc., as processes rather than phenom-ena. These shifts are also present in the title of theCommission’s final report: Many Voices, OneWorld. Communication and Society, Today and To-morrow. Towards a New, More Just and More Effi-cient World Information and Communication Order,which was submitted to UNESCO’s Director-Gen-eral in Spring 1980.

The volume consists of five parts. The first fourreport the findings of studies in four areas: 1)“Communication and Society” (historical and con-temporary perspectives and the international di-mension), 2) “Communication Today” (means ofcommunication, expanding infrastructures, concen-tration, interaction, participants, disparities), 3)“Problems and Issues of Common Concern” (flawsin communication flows, dominance in communica-tion contents, democratization of communication,images of the world, the public and public opinion),

4 4

4) “The Institutional and Professional Framework”(communication policies, material resources, re-search contributions, the professional communica-tors, rights and responsibilities of journalists,norms of professional conduct). The Commissionhad the ambition to treat their subjects from his-torical, socio-economic, cultural and political per-spectives. The report treats all kinds of informationand communication, from interpersonal communica-tion to mass communication and digital communica-tion from local, national and international points ofview. The fifth part of the book, “Conclusions andRecommendations” offers some eighty policy rec-ommendations of problems studied.

The Commission report stresses that it is notonly about developing countries, but about the wholeof humanity, because unless the necessary changesare made in all parts of the world, it will not be possi-ble to attain freedom, reciprocity or independence inthe exchange of information worldwide. The Com-mission confirmed the persistence of imbalances innews and information flows between countries andmarked inequalities in the distribution of communica-tion resources. The Commission agreed about the ne-cessity of change and found the current situation“unacceptable to all” (Many Voices, One World1980:xviii), but they were unable to agree on a defini-tion of the concept of a ‘new world information andcommunication order’. The closest they came werethese few lines in Chairman Sean MacBride’s pref-ace:

...the ‘New World Information and Commu-nication Order’ may be more accurately de-fined as a process than any given set of con-ditions and practices. The particulars of theprocess will continually alter, yet its goalswill be constant – more justice, more equity,more reciprocity in information exchange,less dependence in communication flows, lessdownwards diffusion of messages, more self-reliance and cultural identity, more benefitsfor all mankind. (Many Voices, One World,1980:xviii).

Although it was part of the Commission’s remit, noreal attempt is made to specify the links between anew world economic order and a NWICO.

International flows of information are discussedin part three of the report, in connection with cur-rent problems and in the sections relating to therights and responsibilities of journalists. Here thediscussion invokes a number of concepts that al-ready had won acceptance in UNESCO. The Com-mission links, for example, ‘freedom of the press’ to

the principle of ‘the right to communicate’ and tothe various conventions on human rights adoptedby the United Nations. Links are also established toconcepts like ‘balanced flow of information’ and‘free access to the media’. In this letter connection,the report states:

Despite many disputes about the validity ofsuch criticisms it seems irrefutable that ‘freeflow’ between the strong and the weak, thehaves and the havenots, has had undesirableconsequences for the latter, and hence at theinternational level for the developing coun-tries (Many Voices, One World, 1980: 141f).

For the first time ever, a UNESCO documentplainly stated that a few transnational companiescontrolled the international information system andthat their control posed a threat to the cultural in-tegrity and national independence of many coun-tries. In extension, this dominance is seen to pose athreat to a new world economic order. The Commis-sion perceives corporate dominance to be a conse-quence of the postwar doctrine of ‘free flow of in-formation’. Furthermore, the report baldly de-scribes international information flows as one-wayand vertical (top-down). Long-term measures to im-prove the availability of international news are dis-cussed in terms of the working conditions of jour-nalists, professional skills and attitudes, and theviews of governments. A section entitled “TheTechnological Dilemma” discusses issues relating tonew technologies. Here, the Commission did not re-port a single, unequivocal view. The commercializa-tion of information is harshly criticized, as is the ex-pansion of advertising markets. The Commissionstressed the importance of the social function of in-formation. An important theme in the reportthroughout is, for that matter, an emphasis on thesocietal roles of information and the need for de-mocratization of communication flows.

The sharp differences that had characterized thediscussions throughout the 1970s were also presentin the MacBride Commission. Considering that itconsisted of 16 members representing different ide-ologies, different political, economic and culturalsystems, different geographical areas, it is surpris-ing that the Commission managed to reach agree-ment on as many points as they did. In his Fore-word to Many Voices, One World, Sean MacBridewrites that the members “reached what I consider asurprising measure of agreement on major issues,upon which opinions heretofore had seemed irrec-oncilable” (xviii). Due to differences in the group,the report does not offer any specific proposals re-

4 5

garding communication policy principles. On theother hand, it does offer a good number of recom-mendations and suggestions with a view to reform-ing the prevailing structures in world communica-tions. A majority of those who commented on thereport, including many who were essentially criti-cal, agreed that Many Voices, One World was themost thoroughgoing document of its kind on com-munication to have been produced in UNESCO’sname (Carlsson 1991).

This very brief recap of the findings of theMacBride Commission suggests that the thirdworld’s critique of the prevailing order was heardand gained some measure of acceptance with regardto the pattern of information flows and the domi-nance of transnational news and media corporationsas a threat to cultural integrity and national inde-pendence. But it is only when we analyze the Com-mission’s conclusions and recommendations that wecan truly assess the degree of acceptance the thirdworld’s views on international information andcommunication attained.

The 82 Recommendations of theMacBride CommissionAn Approach

Fundamental to the demands of the non-alignedcountries for a new international information orderwas the idea of greater regulation of the media sys-tem on an international level. The task of theMacBride Commission was to study the problemarea and consider solutions. In its final report, theCommission proposed a series of measures with aview to creating such a new order. The categories inwhich the proposals are arranged are quite descrip-tive of the contents: “Strengthening Independenceand Self-Reliance”; “Social Consequences and NewTasks”; “Professional Integrity and Standards”; “De-mocratization of Communication”; and “FosteringInternational Cooperation”.

Questions to be asked are: What kinds ofchanges does the Commission propose in order toachieve a NWICO? To what extent did the demandsof the third world gain acceptance?

The recommendations have been analyzed withrespect to the ideas implicit in them – a kind ofcritical analysis of political ideas (Vedung 1977).The analysis identified subject areas the recommen-dations treat (and do not treat) and assessed theconsistency of the recommendations, their relevanceand potential to achieve change. Four perspectiveshave been perceived:

1. A Communication perspectiveThe MacBride Commission was asked to study allforms of communication on the level, including de-velopments in communications technology. How dothe recommendations reflect this? How does theCommission interpret ‘communication’? To gain aclearer idea of what aspects of the prevailing orderthe MacBride Commission sought to change it is in-teresting to examine the links in the communicationprocess that the Commission emphasizes. Whereare changes called for? Here it is useful to distin-guish between the media institution, meaning “theprinciples, laws, conventions and instruments forregulation that society has at its disposal”, that is tosay, the media on a societal level; the media organi-zation, which executes the production and distribu-tion functions, i.e., the media companies withinwhich production takes place; and media audiences(McQuail 1984, 1987).

2. A development perspective – the roles of massmedia in societyThe starting point here is theories of the role of in-formation and communication in the developmentprocess and the ideas in the third-world countries’demands for a new international information order.On the basis of theories of the social purposes ofthe media, the following five functions are identi-fied: information, interpretation, continuity, enter-tainment and mobilization (McQuail 1984, 1987).Some functions overlap; the first and fifth have todo with change, whereas the middle three concernintegration (McQuail 1984:75).

3. A third-world perspectiveHere the focus rests on ‘the four D’s’. To what ex-tent do the recommendations of the Commissionsupport the demands for Development, Democrati-zation, Decolonization and Demonopolization?These demands call for measures not only in the de-veloping countries but, perhaps even more so, in thedeveloped countries. Where does the Commissioncall for changes? Is it conditions in the developingcountries, in the developed countries? Or, are the is-sues discussed in a global perspective? Are any ac-tors specified? Ultimately, it is a question of the ex-tent to which the recommendations call for national,regional or international solutions.

4. A practicability perspectiveTo what extent are the recommendations practica-ble? The following categories indicate different de-grees of specification and action orientation: 1) sys-tems level (overarching, general goals, indicate gen-

4 6

eral direction); 2) strategic level (action-oriented,but general); 3) implemantation level (application,concrete solutions, outlined step-by-step, specifiedactors). (cf. Petersson 1964)

The RecommendationsThe measures the MacBride Commission recom-mended to bring about a “new more just and effi-cient world information and communication order”may be described in four points:

1. The development of third-world countries sothat they become truly independent and self-reli-ant and develop their cultural identitiesProposed means to reach these goals include: tai-loring national communications policies to suitthe conditions in the country, building infrastruc-ture, equitable distribution of common globalcommunication resources, limits on the activitiesof transnational corporations, preferential treat-ment of non-commercial media, balanced flowsof technical information.

2. Better international news gathering and betterconditions for journalistsThe Commission recommends ethical rules forthe practice of journalism, improved journalismeducation, multiple news sources, observance ofthe Helsinki Agreement and the Geneva Conven-tion.

3. Democratization of communication (accessand participation, the right to communicate)Important measures here are guarantees of hu-man rights, acceptance of ‘the right to communi-cate’, abolition of censorship, editorial inde-pendence, limits on media concentration andmonopolization, limits on the influence of adver-tisers on editorial policy/media content, atten-tion to the communication needs of women,children and minorities, and facilitation of hori-zontal communication.

4. Furtherance of international cooperationThe measures in this last category aim to effec-tuate previous proposals through internationalcooperation: development assistance, support ofregional fora and collaborative projects, e.g.,NANAP, collaboration between professional or-ganizations and within the research community,an international center for research and planningof information and communication.

The recommendations of the MacBride Commis-sion with the aim of bringing about a more just andefficient world information and communication or-der focus almost entirely on conventional massmedia. This, despite the fact that the Commission’sterms of reference were much broader in scope. Theimportance of traditional communication is referredto in the introductory remarks accompanying therecommendations, but none of the recommenda-tions concern traditional forms or channels of com-munication. Media technology is the only aspectbesides mass media to be considered.

The recommendations are highly structure-ori-ented; most of them concern media institutions andmedia organizations. Fewer than a handful treatmedia content (advertising and news), and not manymore than that concern media audiences (education inthe development process, horizontal communication,the special communication needs of certain groups).

In a number of the recommendations the Com-mission assigns the media specific functions. Themobilization function is stressed in relation to de-velopment, the continuity function in relation tocultural identity, the information function with re-spect to news gathering, and both information andinterpretive functions in relation to democratizationof communication. Elements of both change and in-tegration are present.

The document largely bears the stamp of a devel-opment perspective. The development of the coun-tries of the third world is seen to have a key role inthe work toward a NWICO. The greater part of therecommendations treat conditions in the third world,and taken together, most form a third paradigm of de-velopment. When it comes to measures relating tocommunication technology, the picture is more mixedand somewhat contradictory. Several of the recom-mendations fit in with a modernization paradigm, buta couple are more in keeping with the dependenceparadigm. Neocolonialism confronts decolonization.On the whole, however, it is clear that the third-world countries receive more support for their fourdemands, the ‘four Ds’ than in any previous interna-tional document. Most support is expressed for de-velopment (national communication policy, buildingof infrastructure, journalism education) anddecolonization (cultural identity), but there is sup-port, albeit in more general terms, for democratiza-tion (just flows of information, the allotment of radiofrequencies, satellite capacity, telecommunications)and demonopolization (regulation of transnationalcorporations), as well. A lot of emphasis is put on

4 7

the right to communicate, defined as “the right to beinformed, the right to inform, the right to privacy, theright to participate in public communication” at alllevels – “international, national, local and individual”(Many Voices, One World, 1980:265+173).

The Commission regards these issues as na-tional, whereas the non-aligned countries applied aninternational perspective. The Commission’s pro-posals are nearly all national in focus. Furthermore,there are far more references to what developingcountries should do than to what developed coun-tries should do. At the same time there is, in thefifth part of the recommendations, an emphasis ondevelopment assistance and organs of internationalcooperation as sources of support to the thirdworld, which strengthens the document’s leaningstoward a development perspective.

Most of the recommendations are formulated onthe strategic level. Some are quite concrete, but fewspecify any actor. The actors specified are interna-tional organs, etc., that already have a regulatoryframework. Thus, the key question of who shouldundertake the recommended measures remains unan-swered. The forms of international cooperation out-lined in the fifth part are not sufficiently specific. Allin all, then, the extent of implementation is weak,which definitely limits the prospects of bringingabout a new information and communication order.

Some recommendations are formulated on thesystems level, and these are unfailing indications ofthe areas in which the Commission was unable toresolve its differences. Examples of this in the sec-ond part concern limiting the commercialization ofmedia and strengthening cultural identities, while allof the recommendations in the fourth part, on de-mocratization of the media, have this character.These are also the object of the most reservationson the part of individual commission members. Atthe same time, these recommendations are of thegreatest importance in relation to the demand for aNWICO.

From Regulationof the International Media System toNational Development AssistanceThe Presentation of the MacBrideReport at the UNESCO GeneralConference of 1980The report of the MacBride Commission, ManyVoices, One World, was one of the main points onthe agenda of the 21st General Conference ofUNESCO, held in Belgrade in 1980. As at the two

preceding General Conferences, Nairobi in 1976 andParis in 1978, mass media issues dominated. Thiswas the first time, however, that UNESCO woulddebate the concept of a ‘new world information andcommunication order’, a NWICO. How would theinternational political system respond to the recom-mendations of the Commission? Would it prove pos-sible to change the structure of world communica-tions by means of political decision-making? In thefollowing we shall consider the findings of an analy-sis of the debates and resolution that followed uponthe report of the MacBride Commission.4

The general feeling before the General Confer-ence was that the debate concerning the MacBridereport would be heated and the confrontationsmany. This was not the case, however. Comparedto previous debates on the subject, the discussionsat the 21st General Conference were both construc-tive and open, even if no major changes of positionwere to be noted. A majority of the speakers in Pro-gramme Commission IV Culture and Communica-tion, where the MacBride Commission was de-bated, received the report favorably, which is not tosay that there was no criticism. The political differ-ences between East and West, North and South hadnot diminished.

The non-aligned countries pursued their agenda ofa NWICO and criticized the dominance of the indus-trialized world in the area of communications and themarked imbalance of exchanges of information be-tween countries and regions. The power oftransnational corporations over the communicationof ideas, messages, etc., and the threat that power im-plies for the countries’ cultural identities werestressed. Many speakers from third-world countriesspoke of the role media play in the developmentprocess. In this connection they supported the prin-ciple set out by MacBride Commission, that nationalcommunication policy should strive toward the samegoals as the country’s development policy. The non-aligned countries also lauded the MacBride Commis-sion’s support for the idea of democratization of themedia. Many stressed the importance of developingthe use of “small and local media”.

The Eastern states emphasized the responsibil-ity of mass media and their role in combatting rac-ism, colonialism, imperialism and so forth. Thesespeakers found the MacBride Commission tooWest-oriented. The delegates of the Eastern coun-tries were remarkably restrained in this debate,compared to previous General Conferences.

The Western countries continued to stress free-dom of information and freedom of expression andthe rights of individuals. They expressed the hope

4 8

that the MacBride report would be used “to pro-mote democracy and freedom of communication, di-versity and plurality of news production and accessto a broad spectrum of sources”. The strongestcriticism of the MacBride Commission was raisedby members of the Western ‘bloc’, with the USAand Great Britain the most outspoken critics. Thesetwo countries saw the document as militatingagainst a free flow of information.

An emphasis on practical measures was widelysupported, and many spoke in favor of a projectproposed at a UNESCO Intergovernmental Confer-ence in Paris the preceding Spring, namely, “aproject for the establishment within the frameworkof UNESCO, of an International Programme for theDevelopment of Communication” (Recommenda-tion from Intergovernmental Conference for Com-munication Development, Paris 14th-21st April1980, §3 CoS, 19, p 85; known as the ‘DEVCOMConference’). Nearly all the delegates were agreed asthe need for greater communication capacity in thethird world and that international cooperation wasneeded to develop infrastructures in the third-worldcountries. These were the aspects of the MacBridereport that received the most attention.

To the surprise of many, Director-GeneralM’Bow’s document on the findings of the Com-mission were quite cautious and general. The pas-sage, “no need for immediate actions at this stage,”clearly signaled that the recommendations of theCommission would be let go by the boards, thatno implementation would be forthcoming (DOC21C/85). But a majority of the speakers agreedthat the Commission had fulfilled its task and re-garded the report as a milestone in continued inter-national discussions. There was also general agree-ment that the recommendations, while far from de-finitive, could be used as a framework of the con-struction of a new order.

In his closing remarks, the Chairman of the Gen-eral Conference underlined the need of assistance inthe field of communication. He also expressed theview that the debate had demonstrated the need forUNESCO to play an active role with regard to com-munication. He hailed the MacBride Commissionreport as a step along the way toward a new inter-national information order that must be founded on1) the “elimination of domestic and external barri-ers,” 2) “pluralism of information,” 3) “freedom ofthe press,” and 4) the “free circulation of informa-tion, ideas and persons” (UNESCO, Records of theGeneral Conference 1980, vol. 2).

Finally, the Chairman announced that a workinggroup would be appointed to draft a resolution on

the subject. Three drafts had been tabled: one fromeach ‘bloc’. After protracted and difficult negotia-tions, consensus on a draft resolution was reached.Several countries, including Great Britain, the USA,Canada, Australia and Japan, asked that the reasonsfor their vote be recorded in the minutes. Theselargely revolved around the definition of ‘a newworld information and communication order’.

A Draft NWICOThe preamble of UNESCO Resolution 4/19 on theInternational Commission for the Study of Commu-nication Problems is reminiscent of Article 19 of theDeclaration of Human Rights and of Articles 19 and20 in the International Convention on Civil and Po-litical Rights. The first part of the resolution ac-knowledges the contributions of the non-alignedcountries in the area of information and communica-tion:

Noting the increasing attention devoted tocommunication problems and needs by otherintergovernmental organizations, both regio-nal and international, notably the Movementof Non-Aligned Countries which, in the Dec-laration of the Colombo Summit (1976), statedthat “a new international order in the fields ofinformation and mass communication is asvital as a new international economic order’and, in the Declaration of the Havana Sum-mit (1979), noting progress in the develop-ment of national information media, stressedthat “co-operation in the field of informationis an integral part of the struggle for the crea-tion of new international relations in generaland a new international information order inparticular,” ... (UNESCO Records of the Gen-eral Conference 1980, vol. 1, Res 4/19).

It was the first time such an acknowledgment wasmade by an international organ such as UNESCO.Several clauses referred to the work of the Mac-Bride Commission, which is lauded as a valuablecontribution to the study of problems relating to in-formation and communication. Many problemswere seen to have been defined, analyzed and con-structive solutions to them proposed. The recom-mendations of the Commission, however, were de-ferred and filed among the preliminary documenta-tion for UNESCO’s Medium-Term Plan 1984-1989.

Some features of the recommendations are in-cluded in the resolution. Certain phrases in para-graph 10 highlight the need to develop informationand communication: the drafting of national com-

4 9

munication policy, developing infrastructure, de-mocratization of the media. These three points arethe most concrete points in the resolution. They re-fer primarily to the recommendations listed in theMacBride report under the heading, “I. Strengthen-ing Independence and Self-Reliance” and the por-tion of “IV. Democratization of Communication”that pertains to human rights. Paragraph 13 of theresolution also refers to the recommendations (40and 46) of the Commission concerning “improvedinternational reporting”. The resolution calls for theneed for UNESCO to help enhance journalists’knowledge of other cultures and the economics andpolitics of other countries.

The essential content of the resolution is to befound in paragraph 14, where a couple of pointsoutline the content of a conceivable new world in-formation and communication order. The paragraphconsists of three parts, a)-c). The first containseleven points that provide a conceivable frameworkfor a new world order; the second states that thenew order shall be founded in international law; andthe third points out that different countries willchoose different solutions, according to their social,political, cultural and economic traditions and cir-

cumstances. This latter point was empasized in theMacBride Report, as well.

It is quite clear that it was difficult to midwife theresolution, and particularly the catalogue of possible‘fundaments’ of a new world order in paragraph 14,into being. One sign of the power struggle is thephraseology that introduces the eleven points in parta). The use of “could” instead of “should”, as in b),is a sure sign that a NWICO is a process that the au-thors of the resolution have agreed to continue work-ing on and one that may be based on the fundamentsset out in the resolution (Nordenstreng 1984, Garbo1984). Thus, the resolution assumed more the char-acter of recommendations than calls to duty on thepart of the signatories.

The fundaments outlined in paragraph 14 areeven more general than the recommendations in theMacBride report. All eleven points in part a) maybe traced back to the 82 recommendations of theCommission, but the language has been modified.The level of abstraction and the rhetoric both reflectthe amount of diplomatic effort that went into forg-ing agreement on the draft and, not least, of thelukewarm reception of the MacBride recommenda-tions on the part of Director-General M’Bow –

Resolution 4/19 Adopted by the Twenty-first Session of the UNESCO General Conference, Belgrade, 1980.

§14. The General conference considers thata) this new world information and communication order could be based, among other considerations, on:

i) elimination of the imbalances and inequalities which characterize the present situation;ii) elimination of the negative effects of certain monopolies, public or private, and excessive con-

centrations;iii) removal of the internal and external obstacles to a free flow and wider and better balanced

dissemination of information and ideas;iv) plurality of sources and channels of information;v) fredom of the press and information;vi) the freedom of journalists and all professionals in the communication media, a freedom insepara-

ble from responibility;vii) the capacity of developing countries to achieve improvement of their own situations, notably by

providing their own equipment, by training their personell, by improving their infrastructures andby making their information and communication media suitable to their needs and aspirations;

viii) the sincere will of developed countries to help them attain these objectives;ix) respect for each people’s cultural identity and for the right of each nation to inform the world

public about its interests, its aspirations and its social and cultural values;x) respect for the right of all peoples to participate in international exchanges of information on

the basis of equality, justice and mutual benefit;xi) respect for the right of the public, of ethnic and social groups and of individuals to have access to

information sources and to participate actively in the communication process:b) this new world information and communication order should be based on the fundamental principles of

international law, as laid down in the Charter of the United Nations;c) diverse solutions to information and communication problems are required because social, political,

cultural and economic problems differ from one country to another and, within a given country, fromone group to another. (UNESCO Records of the General Conference 1980, vol 1, Res 14/19)

5 0

which countries like the USA and Great Britaingreeted with some satisfaction (Goddard-Power1984, Garbo 1984).

Development, strengthening of independence andself-reliance, cultural identity, democratization (ac-cess-participation) and the right to communicatewere key concepts in the recommendations of theMacBride Commission. Of these key concepts,only ‘development’ and ‘cultural identity’ were in-cluded in the text of the resolution. The fundamentsincluded in the resolution may be grouped accordingto their thematic content. First, there are incite-ments to remove various hindrances and negative ef-fects (e.g., monopolization and concentration). Sec-ondly, freedoms (of information, the press, journal-ists’ rights and responsibilities, multiple sources).Third, a couple of more concrete points concerningdevelopment and third-world countries’ need of de-velopment assistance. Finally, the concluding pointsare about cultural identity, the right to participate ininternational flows of information, the right of ac-cess to sources of information, etc.- all in all: as-pects of the ‘right to communicate’, albeit thephrase is absent from the resolution. On that pointno consensus could be reached.

The concluding paragraph of the resolution(§ 15) expresses a sense that UNESCO has herebyaffirmed:

...its willingness in its short-term and me-dium-term activities to contribute to the clari-fication, elaboration and application of theconcept of a new world information and com-munication order ... (UNESCO Records ofthe General Conference 1980, Res 14/19).

In all probability no resolution would have beenforthcoming, had the Director-General insisted thatthe resolution be based on the 82 recommendationsof the MacBride Commission. An emphasis on ‘de-velopment’ may be the factor that made consensuspossible. Development and development assistancewere also in focus in the creation of the Interna-tional Programme for Communication Development(IPCD), which may be counted among the indirectresults of the work of the MacBride Commission’swork. The terms of reference of the IPDC were setout in a separate resolution, the preamble of whichstates:

....this international programme, aiming toincrease co-operation and assistance for thedevelopment of communication infrastruc-tures and to reduce the gap between variouscountries in the communication field, must

form part of the efforts for the establishmentof a “new, more just and more effective worldinformation and communication order”...(UNESCO Records of the General Confer-ence 1980, vol 1, Res 4/21).

Otherwise, the resolution consists of statutes, pro-cedural rules, scope of activity (purpose). Thetasks of the IPDC are set out in 14 points. Thesefall into four categories (Garbo 1984):

1. Development assistance – analysis of needs,planning and development of a national com-munication sector, development of infrastruc-tures, assistance in using communication inthe development effort in economic, socialand cultural spheres;

2. Coordination – to facilitate cooperationbetween actors in international communi-cation development, to strengthen thecooperation between UNESCO and the Inter-national Telecommunication Union, to pro-mote regional cooperation, e.g., between newsservices in the developing countries;

3. Information – to gather information aboutneeds and resources in the field of communi-cation, to evaluate cooperation between deve-loping and developed countries; and

4. Funding – raising the financing necessaryto carry out assistance, coordination and in-formation activities.

Many delegates expressed their satisfaction over theinstitution of the IPDC. Delegates from the thirdworld were particularly pleased. The draft from theDEVCOM meeting in Paris in early 1980, which pre-ceded the IPDC resolution, was included in the reso-lution of the General Conference. It is a more far-reaching document than the MacBride resolution,viewed from the point of view of the non-alignedcountries. It contains rhetoric like ‘safeguarding na-tional sovereignty and cultural identity,’ ‘situationsof dependence,’ ‘state of dependency of developingcountries in the field of information and communica-tion,’ ‘democratization of international relations inthe field of information,’ a ‘need to establish a newinformation and communication order,’ ‘the funda-mental contribution that the information media andmass communications can make to the establishmentof a new economic order’ – rhetoric that is muchmore in keeping with that of the non-aligned coun-tries than either the MacBride Commission or theWestern countries. Although the USA had advocateddonor control and limited authority on the part of

5 1

UNESCO at the DEVCOM meeting, the text ema-nating from the meeting was adopted in consensus,to the surprise of many observers (Nordenstreng1984, Richstad & Anderson 1981).

The General Conference of 1980- A Turning Point?As noted earlier, the 1980 General Conference wasapproached amidst mounting uncertainty as to thefuture of UNESCO. The third world’s demands forradical reform of the prevailing information orderwere characterized by some in the West as a threatto the ‘Free World’, as ‘Freedom under attack’(Fascell 1979). Many Western countries perceivedthe movement as an “effort by the Soviet Union andsome Third World countries to foster governmentcontrol of media under the guise of a New Worldand Communication Order” (Goddard-Power1981:142). Meanwhile, fatigue was widespreadwithin UNESCO, and many delegates felt that somechange was necessary if UNESCO were to live onin keeping with its statutes.

Media issues had dominated UNESCO’s agendamost of the 1970s, with wars of words and ideasbeing waged on two front lines: East vs West andNorth vs South. Both the USA and Great Britainthreatened to leave UNESCO on repeated occa-sions. By 1980, there was a general will, amongcountries in all three blocs, to reach some kind ofmutually acceptable compromise on issues relatingto mass media in order to normalize the climatewithin UNESCO. One route toward agreement thatwon support in many quarters was an urge to takeaction. Strong support was expressed for the devel-opment program, IPDC, particularly among theWestern countries, whose position was most prob-ably tactically motivated (Goddard-Power 1984:462, Nordenstreng 1984a:46). A commitment topractical development assistance might mollify thenon-aligned countries, bring them to soften their de-mands, and reduce the intensity of ideological con-frontations in international fora. This is not to say,of course, that some Western countries may haveacted on sincere conviction (Svenska UNESCO-Rådet 1980, Garbo 1984).

Even the Soviet delegation showed signs of a will-ingness to compromise. It had to do with the politi-cal repercussions of the country’s invasion of Af-ghanistan the year before. The Soviet leadership wasanxious to maintain good relations with Western Eu-rope, despite the chill in relations with the USA

(Jonson 1985). As a consequence, the Soviet delega-tion was much more restrained at the General Con-ference of 1980 than in previous meetings. Moreo-ver, a study of the proceedings of the General Con-ference suggests that Director-General M’Bow haddecided to adopt the role of facilitator or arbitratoron issues relating to communication. Such a role isalso suggested in his document pertaining to ManyVoices, One World. This was an entirely new role forthe Director-General, who was known for hismilitance and as a spokesman for the third world po-sition. His posture at the 1980 General Conferencemay have been intended to improve a tarnished ‘im-age’ in the eyes of certain Western countries (cf.Gerbner et al. 1993, Nordenstreng 1989).

Be that as it may, there is no doubt that theGeneral Conference of 1980 marked a breakthroughfor the demands of the third world. Although therecommendations of the MacBride Commissionwere not debated, the work of the Commission hada palpable influence on the conference and its out-come in that a number of issues – such as the IPDC– had been aired and digested at intergovernmentalmeetings leading up to the General Conference. TheCommission had cleared the path, so to say, whichbenefitted the third world countries in several re-spects. The ideas of the non-aligned countries hadwon recognition. UNESCO members were able toagree on several fundaments for a new world infor-mation and communication order, several of whichcorresponded with the intentions of the non-alignedcountries. Surprisingly, even a clause on monopoli-zation and concentration of the media won ap-proval. The industrialized countries promised aid tohelp to build and develop communication systemsin developing countries. One can take this as evi-dence that the third world advanced its position andthat the concept of NWICO had attained somemeasure of acceptance. At the same time, the Westput development and aid issues squarely on theagenda and managed to turn the focus away fromtheir own roles and onto conditions in the thirdworld countries. Some statements coincided withtenets of the modernization paradigm. The interna-tional dimension was diluted, as it had been in theMacBride Commission’s work. Here we can per-ceive a crossroads for UNESCO on the horizon, apoint where the organization would have to choosebetween continued work on a new information or-der and a more decided focus on development andaid issues.

5 2

Full Circle:NWICO is Relegated to the HistoryThe UNESCO General Conferences 1982-1989: A Focus on Practical Measures

The inflamed debate that the issues of free flow ofinformation and a new world information orderaroused in the 1970s bore two concrete results atthe 1980 UNESCO General Conference. Two reso-lutions were adopted, one a follow-up to the workof the MacBride Commission, and the other a moveto set up IPDC, an international development pro-gram for mass communication. These two resolu-tions were to dominate UNESCO’s continued workwith communication. Here we shall look into whatbecame of NWICO in the 1980s. How didUNESCO deal with issues relating to informationand communication more generally? What traces ofthe work of the MacBride Commission are presentin the programs of the 1980s? What were the con-sequences of the two resolutions adopted at theGeneral Conference? An analysis of the discussionsthat took place in UNESCO after 1980 helps to an-swer our main question: What caused NWICO to bestricken from the international agenda?5

The MacBride resolution contained a skeletonplan for a new information and communication orderin the world, but the recommendations of the Com-mission were referred to the planning of the comingsix-year plan for 1984-1989, “Communication in theService of Man,” to be adopted at a specially con-vened General Conference in 1982. Although, therecommendations did not make any major imprint onthe main program, some of the recommendations arevisible in sections of the plan, most notably, in rela-tion to the needs of developing countries to enablethem to take part in international exchanges of infor-mation. The MacBride Commission had emphasizedthe right to communicate, but it had proved impossi-ble to reach consensus on the concept at the 1980General Conference. Two years later, however, itcould be included in UNESCO’s six-year plan. Thecommunication rights of women and minorities, theconditions applying to journalists and informationand communication technology are other areas inwhich reference is made to the recommendations ofthe Commission. At the same time, the general turntoward development efforts in third-world countrieswas reinforced.

Former differences among UNESCO members re-mained, but the direct confrontations were fewer thanthey had been in many years. But in retrospect it isclear that the tranquility was illusory and largely con-fined to the General Conferences. The issue of a

NWICO, as formulated in the MacBride resolution of1980 was still a thorn in the sides of many Westerncountries. Particularly the USA and Great Britainwere vehement and threatened to withdraw fromUNESCO. A frontal assault on the idea of a NWICOwas mounted in a declaration adopted by an interna-tional conference with representation from sometwenty countries arranged by the World Press Free-dom Committee inter alia in Talloire, France, in 1981.UNESCO was also criticized for inefficiency and forits having become ‘politicized’. The prominence andinfluence of third-world countries in UNESCO in theearly 1980s, with many positions in the secretariat, aresult of Director-General M’Bow’s policies, was aconstant source of friction (Bartelson & Ringmar1985).

The USA had additional complaints, as well.The foreign policy of the newly installed ReaganAdministration differed markedly from that of theCarter Administration. The American UNESCOCouncil experienced a decided change of climate ascold war sentiments again gained currency. The re-porting from the 1982 General Conference to theReagan Administration was totally preoccupiedwith communication issues, and the work inUNESCO was perceived to limit the freedom of thepress and to subordinate individual freedoms to thewill of the collective (Bartelson & Ringmar 1985,Gerbner 1993, Goddard-Power 1984, Harley 1981,Levin 1984, Mehan 1981).

The USA also mentioned UNESCO’s work withNWICO among the reasons for their decision toleave the organization in 1984. Shortly after theAmerican announcement, Great Britain, too, made itknown that they were considering withdrawing,which they did the following year. These decisionswere taken despite the fact that the heated confron-tations expected at the 1983 General Conference didnot materialize. Instead, communications issueswere even more de-politicized and development as-sistance moved even further to the fore. The coun-tries of the Eastern bloc continued to hold a decid-edly lower profile than they had in the 1970s. Inother words, the decisions to leave UNESCO cameat a time when the will to reach consensus was ex-ceptionally strong. The withdrawal of the two greatpowers dealt a major blow to UNESCO’s budgetand thus to the organization per se.

At the 1985 General Conference, after the USAleft UNESCO, the non-aligned countries made aconcerted effort to push for a NWICO, but their ef-forts were in vain. Their influence in internationalarenas had declined significantly in several respects,and at the General Conference of 1989, the concept

5 3

of NWICO was stricken from the agenda once andfor all. Even interest in the concept of the right tocommunicate cooled. Free flow was again in the as-cendant. Despite these changes in UNESCO policy,neither the USA nor Great Britain showed any will-ingness to return to the organization.

The 1989 General Conference marked the ulti-mate failure of the non-aligned countries to bringabout new principles for information and communi-cation in the world. A political vision faded into his-tory, displaced by an increasing focus on practical de-velopment assistance, a change that also imbued thecommunication program adopted at the Conference.Looking back to the 1960s, we see that the issues re-lating to world communication had come full circle.UNESCO’s role was once again that of donor.

During the 1980s, the IPDC (International Pro-gramme for Communication Development) came tosymbolize the new emphasis on practical measures –often synonymous with development assistance.Support for the Programme was virtually universal.In its early sessions several attempts were mountedto turn the IPDC into a forum of ideological debate,but IPDC Chairman Gunnar Garbo, a Norwegian,managed to hew to a practical line. The lodestars ofthe IPDC were, from the start, independence, self-re-liance, and cultural identity – key concepts, all three,in the recommendations of the MacBride Commis-sion. The developing countries retained a relativelystrong position in the IPDC in early years.

Funding proved a problem, however. After thefirst two years in operation, Norway contributedroughly half of budget, while two-thirds of theother half came from the developing countriesthemselves, testimony to their great interest. In1988, the IPDC extended some 13 million dollars to332 projects. In early years, developing news serv-ices was in focus; in time, the focus shifted to edu-cation and professional training. The majority ofprojects were national, the rest regional.

In the years following Garbo’s term of office, theIPDC grew increasingly bureaucratic and supportfor the Programme waned. Indeed, criticism haileddown on the organization. In short, the IPDC failedto realize the intent of the resolution that gave birthto it, namely, to develop media structures in thethird world.

Four Reasons for UNESCO’sChange of CourseAfter 1980, only one international agreement on in-formation and mass communication was reached,viz., the agreement on “The Right to Communicate”

adopted at the UNESCO General Conference of1983. The only other resolutions pertaining to thearea had to do with the development program,IPDC. This, if anything, confirms the change of cli-mate and changed power relationships since thepreceding decade, which saw no less than eight suchagreements in the area adopted by UNESCO. Thevehement debates about issues like freedom of in-formation, the social responsibility of the media,free flows of information, news imperialism and, ul-timately, a new international information and com-munication order may thus be seen to form an ex-ceptional parenthesis in UNESCO’s history to date.The issue of a NWICO was history, having beendisplaced by questions relating to development as-sistance. The reasons for this change of course maybe summarized in four points.

1. The MacBride Commission lends structure tothe debateIn an international perspective, the work of theMacBride Commission clearly made a valuablecontribution. Sixteen representatives from dif-ferent parts of the world agreed on an uncom-monly concrete document that included a draftprogram of measures. Although its contents werepartly controversial, the report definitely influ-enced UNESCO’s subsequent communicationpolicies. The work of the Commission orderedthe issues in a structure that made it possible toraise the level of the debate. The solutions of-fered lent the issues concretion. We find supportfor this in the many references to the MacBrideCommission in the debates in the ProgrammeCommission and in the resolutions adopted inconnection with the communication program.Moreover, many different media figured in thediscussions of the 1980s, whereas news servicesand the press had dominated earlier. Finally, theMacBride Commission’s emphasis on conditionsin the third world also contributed to the changeof course.

2. The creation of the IPDCThe creation of the IPDC came to symbolize thenew direction of UNESCO communicationpolicy, with its stress on development and prac-tical measures. Development assistance was onceagain in center stage. The Western countries ex-pressed warm enthusiasm for the IPDC and con-sidered themselves the ‘authors’ of the project.Had the MacBride Commission not focused ondevelopment aspects, the program would mostprobably not have been instituted. The IPDC

5 4

was the focus of discussion in all the sessions ofthe Programme Commissions through the 1980s.The existence of the IPDC also affected the mean-ing of certain central concepts, in that they cameincreasingly to be discussed in direct relation tothe program. As the IPDC assumed a central rolein UNESCO communication policy, issues relat-ing to development assistance also came to thefore, at the expense of international perspectives.

3. UNESCO and its Director-General under fireUnder the leadership of Director-GeneralAhmadou-Mahtar M’Bow, UNESCO wascriticized for having politicized informationissues, for inefficiency and an exceedingly large(and growing) bureaucracy. Particularly theDirector-General was accused of favoring thedeveloping countries, and particularly Africancountries. The sharpest criticism was deliveredby the USA and a number of European coun-tries, Great Britain principal among them. Issuesrelating to the media and mass communicationhad more or less brought UNESCO to astandstill; in order for the organization to be ableto fulfill its mandate, some change was absolutelynecessary. The pressure of criticism forcedDirector-General M’Bow to modify his stance.Among other things, he declined to bring theMacBride Commission’s 82 recommendations upfor debate at the 1980 General Conference,assuming instead the role of mediator betweenthe opposing blocs.

4. Exit the USA and Great BritainObviously, the American and British threats toleave the organization and their subsequentdeparture had an impact on UNESCO. Evenbefore they withdrew, the intensity of theconfrontations within UNESCO abated, and theGeneral Conferences of 1983 and 1985 wererelatively quiet and characterized by anuncommon willingness to meet the amendmentsproposed by the USA and Great Britain halfway. In this respect, the exits of the two powersbrought about a change in power relationshipswithin the organization. The influence of theDirector-General shrank, as criticism of his roleintensified. The Western countries consolidatedtheir strength, while the influence of the non-aligned bloc declined, and the Eastern blocremained relatively passive. As a result, in 1985the seemingly eternal bone of contention, theissue of the social responsibility of mass media,could be stricken from UNESCO’s agenda, after

nearly fifteen years’ strife. The exit of the twomajor members also represented a loss of morethan 30 per cent of UNESCO’s revenues – whichin itself weakened the organization.

Thus, it was the confluence of several factors thatbrought about the change of course in UNESCO dur-ing the 1980s. One should not, however, ignore moregeneral changes in international politics of the era,factors like the ‘détente’ and the talks on disarma-ment that came with the thaw in the Cold War. Thesenaturally affected the context in which UNESCO op-erated. But new power relationships were soon es-tablished as a result of political conflicts and changedmarket conditions. Tensions between the USA andthe Soviet Union rose again to a new crescendo withthe Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, whichhad a palpable impact on the climate in the UntiedNations and its specialized agencies in the early1980s. Another more general feature of the times isthe weakened position of the non-aligned movementin the 1980s, a development that has to do withOPEC’s declining importance in the oil market. Openhostilities, even hot wars, had broken out betweenseveral of OPEC’s members, which made it increas-ingly difficult for the oil-exporting countries topresent a united front to the outside world, as theyhad in the 1970s (cf. Bartelson & Ringmar 1985,Karlsson 1993, MacBride & Roach 1993).

In sum we may see the issue of a new worldcommunication order as an expression of the spiritof the times, an era of ideological debate and con-flict, a period in which power relationships on in-ternational markets were challenged and changed.The issue of a NWICO, as formulated in the 1970swithin UNESCO, was an outgrowth of the develop-ment paradigm and its ideological components. This,and the venue, the international arena UNESCOrepresented, made it possible to challenge the pre-vailing order and urge reform. In a longer perspec-tive we also see that the 1970s formed a period oftransition, from politics and ideology to market so-lutions. The 1950s and 1960s were, overall, opti-mistic. Rich countries prospered, poor countriesgained their independence. People had faith in po-litical solutions, believed in the promise of newtechnology and economic growth. But in the 1970sthis faith weakened; ideological conflicts surfaced,the status quo was questioned, and collective solu-tions were advanced. The 1980s, then, saw the dis-integration of many of the very institutions thathad inspired optimism twenty and thirty years ear-lier. Deregulation, commercialization, consumerismand individualism became watchwords. The change

5 5

was clearly linked to the advance of technology-driven globalization.

Looking back, we see that signs of a new eco-nomic world order could be discerned as early as the1970s. Later, in the 1980s, a new political world or-der did in fact emerge. The driving forces behindthis latter metamorphosis were quite beyond reachof the international political system; they were also,ideologically speaking, quite contrary to the think-ing behind NWICO.

The Information and CommunicationOrder in the Era of GlobalizationGlobalization of the MediaThe face of world politics changed drastically in thefirst years of the 1990s with the disintegration of theSoviet Union and the fall of communist governmentsin Eastern Europe. A far-reaching restructuring ofmarkets worldwide ensued, and the past decade haswitnessed the successive commercialization, deregu-lation and privatization of many sectors. Globaliza-tion, particularly of markets, has permeated the pub-lic sphere and many aspects of our daily lives. Na-tional markets are becoming integrated into a globalmarket structure. National frontiers are fading inmany other respects, as well. Not least in the mediasystem, where technological innovation and deregula-tion, particularly in the field of telecommunications,have accelerated the process. A new political andeconomic world order has brought changes in the in-formation and communication order, too.

The contrasts between North and South havechanged little since the 1970s, when the issue of aNWICO was raised. This is made abundantly clearin Human Development Report, published annuallyby the UN Development Programme, UNDP. Onthe whole, underdevelopment and poverty have de-clined since the 1950s. Freedom from colonial rulebrought improvements with regard to education andhealth care and a more rapid pace of economicgrowth. But the development process has proven arocky road. To mention but one example: globaliza-tion creates tensions that have increased or threatento increase poverty. Every fourth person in theworld today subsists on an income of less than oneU.S. dollar a day. UNDP not only forecasts a lowrate of economic growth and stagnation for the de-veloping countries, but goes on to identify a numberof stumbling blocks to development such as politi-cal conflicts and war, slower progress in fields likefood security, and the spread of HIV/AIDS (HumanDevelopment Report 1997-2002).

Properly structured, globalization can lead to amore just, peaceful and secure world. Globalizationholds the promise of reducing inequalities and pov-erty through trade, technology diffusion and the ex-change of knowledge, and through greater con-sciousness of shared values such as democratic ruleand human rights.

The globalization we see today, however, is notalways global. In some respects the world is morefragmented today than perhaps ever before; thereare sharp divisions – between rich and poor, be-tween the powerful and the powerless. Thousandsof millions of people lack access to the mutual in-teraction that globalization makes possible. Exclu-sion is the plight of the poorest countries of thesouth, yes, but also of the poorest in the richestcountries. Virtually every country of the worldknows the problems and conflicts this gives rise to:widening income gaps, poverty, environmental deg-radation, ill health, ethnic conflict, racism, inequal-ity of men and women, discrimination, intolerance,etc.

Exclusion is more than a question of material as-sets – it is also a question of access to knowledgeand culture, i.e., the fundaments of social develop-ment. Unless the cultural diversity inherent in soci-ety is acknowledged and represented in the publicsphere, no positive political, economic or social de-velopment will be possible.

For many people, globalization has meant thatthe world is shrinking. We have gained access to cul-tures and knowledge that were previously beyondour ken. Cultural frontiers are being transcended anda great diversity of actors are active on the globalstage. But there is a down side, as well; globaliza-tion may also lead to homogenization, to the extinc-tion of uniqueness, of definitive cultural idiosyncra-sies. The institutions and companies that controlglobalized culture today tend toward standardiza-tion; commercial interests steer, and there is a riskthat the interests of the wealthier peoples of theworld, consumers, will prevail. At the same time,the world seems in some respects to be becomingless accessible. Everywhere in the world there arepeople who feel a need to defend their cultural iden-tities. As a consequence, the frontiers between na-tions, cultures and religions are being turned into‘front lines’, locally and internationally. Transcend-ence and lines of defense are two simultaneous phe-nomena in the same globalization process.

Mass media play a decisive part in what we callthe globalization process. Without the media andmodern information technology globalization as weknow it today would not be possible. Access to

5 6

various media, to telephony and digital services areoften held forth as crucial to our political, economicand cultural development. Free and independentmedia are also vital to the survival and developmentof democracy. Meanwhile, a good share of the peo-ple of the world lack electricity and access to tel-ecommunications and are thereby condemned tomarginalization.

The development of innovative informationtechnologies and the ongoing processes of deregula-tion and concentration of ownership have spurredthe pace of globalization. Particularly communica-tions satellites and digitalization – not least theInternet – have had an enormous impact. These in-novations have opened worldwide markets formedia products such as television programs, films,news, games and advertising. They have been a sinequa non for the formation and proper functioning ofglobal enterprises and flows of information acrossnational frontiers. The production and distributionof media products are highly concentrated branches,with respect to both content and ownership. Mean-while, traditional distinctions, between informationand entertainment, between hardware and software,between product and distribution, are blurring.

Much of what could be only vaguely discernedon the horizon back in the 1970s is now upon us infull force. The volume of information we have at ourdisposal has multiplied many times over; it is avail-able via many new players via many new channelsin ‘the new information society’. The relationshipsbetween the rich countries and the poor countriesof the world that the MacBride Commission de-scribed at the end of the 1970s seem to prevail, es-sentially unchanged. Issues relating to mass mediahave been marginalized within UNESCO, and theworld today is far too fragmented for an issue like‘the right to communicate’ to gain acceptance. Insum, there is no basis in reality for a political dis-cussion of how to regulate the international mediasystem, as was done in the 1970s.

Global Actors in the Media MarketNews Flows – the Same Principal ActorsThen as NowMuch of the debate about a NWICO in the 1970srevolved around news flows across national fron-tiers. Studies made in the 1970s confirmed a de-cided imbalance in the flows between North andSouth. One of the main demands regarding aNWICO was the call for a more equitable anddemocratic flow of information; initially, mainlyflows of news.

The objects of the non-aligned countries’ criti-cism were mainly the major wire services that oper-ated worldwide: AP, AFP, dpa, Reuters and UPI.Because of their dominance they were held respon-sible for the ‘one-way flow’ of news and other in-formation between North and South.

The international wire services were pioneers inthe development of a global network. Havingstarted up in the early 1850s, they were the firsttransnational media systems, products of moder-nity. They defined political and economic news,thereby creating a product that was sold, in differ-ent packaging, to political and economic elites, ei-ther directly or via mass media, at home and inother parts of the world. The wire services devel-oped information technologies so as to improve theglobal communications networks. Today, they dis-tinguish themselves from other acctors on the globalmarket in that they both contribute to globalizationand consolidate their own countries. (Hjarvard2001)

Contemporary news flows differ from those ofthe 1970s through a much larger volume and throughgreater diversification. But interest in using othersources than the major wire services is limited sothat they have retained their privilege of definingwhat constitutes news. They, particularly marketleaders AP and Reuters, also supply Internet serv-ices with news copy. Here there is a natural link tothe main sources of news film. The news market to-day is highly diversified and segmented into anumber of subgenres: business news, sports news,entertainment news, medical news, and the Internetfacilitates further development, both in terms ofgeographical extent and volume. But the content theservices carry does not seem to have evolved to anynotable extent. When CNN ‘stole’ a sizable share ofthe global market in the mid-1990s, the dominanceof the USA in news reporting worldwide was thetarget of criticism, and researchers found that ‘thenews seen on World Report is the same old news ofthe world’ (Fluornoy & Stewart 1997:23).

Some collaboration between established newsagencies (EBU) and news agencies in the third worldwas established in the 1980s as a direct conse-quence of the NWICO debate. Danish media scholarStig Hjarvard, who has studied the exchange of newsfootage within Eurovision, found that Asia (Asia-vision) is the only region where the EBU regularlygathered news in the 1990s. Otherwise, use of thirdworld sources is no more than sporadic. Less thanfour per cent of the material carried by EBU’s newsexchange, EVN, in 1991 originated in regional col-laboration with third world news organizations.

5 7

To some extent, the sparse representation may beattributed to a scarcity of material that is of rel-evance to EBU’s viewers. Hjarvard analyzed theobstacles and disinterest that collaboration has meton the national level and comments that collabora-tion seems to occur despite, rather than as a resultof, national policy. Interest resides among journal-ists, not governments (Hjarvard 1995:505).

But even if regional collaboration has notbrought about any major changes, regionalization ofnews reporting has developed, particularly in theArab world. The news service, Al jazeera is a casein point. But this is not to say that Al jazeera is amajor news source outside the Arab world.

An examination of the structure of the produc-tion and distribution of media products does notturn up any thoroughgoing changes since the 1970sas far as news flows are concerned. ResearcherOliver Boyd-Barrett presumes that nothing haschanged and points out that the most problematicaspect today resides not so much in the skew geo-political pattern of news diffusion as in the effectsof the very narrow range of news content carried,the focus on elites and conventional Western newsvalues, viz., conflict rather than stability, eventsrather than processes (Boyd-Barrett 1997). This,despite the fact that, thanks to the Internet, manymore different news sources around the world areavailable than was even conceivable 20-30 yearsago. That is to say, there is an unprecedented po-tential for both more diverse and more extensivenews flows.

Transnational Media CompaniesGrow Even BiggerCritics of the status quo in the 1970s took the con-centration in the media branch and the threat to di-versity that it posed as cause to demand some formof international regulation of media markets. Sincethen, media corporations have grown considerably.

Back in the 1970s, the objects of concern were themajor wire services and, above all, film studios thatoperated on the international market, e.g. Columbia,Warner Brothers, Twentieth Century-Fox, UnitedArtists – all based in the USA. Indeed, it is amongthese companies that we find the germ of many ofthe transnational corporations (TNC) that dominatethe media market today. Some of these companieshave taken advantage of deregulation and privatiza-tion in vast regions of the world and purchased andfused with other companies to become global mediaconglomerates.

The TNCs operate on multiple levels, globalchannels spread the same message (in the same lan-guage), regional channels in local languages are es-tablished, and technical systems are made available.A few transnational media companies, most ofwhich are based in the USA or Europe, dominatethe spread of media products. Their cultural pres-ence is considerable on virtually every continent.Lately, they have begun to establish themselves inthe developing countries. Together with the WorldWide Web, the expansion of media TNCs also hasincreased the paramountcy of English.

Most of these companies are primarily involvedin television and entertainment, but several also dealin news gathering and distribution. All control morethan one medium and are thus able to advertise andsell their products in one medium via one or moreothers.

Both of the two transnational corporations inthe third world are to be found in Latin America.They are Globo in Brazil and Televisa in Mexico.Globo is the larger with a volume of roughly USD 3billion (Variety Aug 26-Sep 1, 2002). Having startedout in the newspaper branch, the company now hasexpanded into television, pay-TV, music publishingand book publishing.

The media have become increasingly commercial-ized over the past few decades. Market shares are

Table 1. The Largest Media Corporations in the World, by Media Sales Volume 2001 (USD billions)

1. AOL Time Warner 38 USA2. Viacom (Inc.) 23 USA3. Vivendi Universal 19 France/USA4. The Walt Disney Company 16 USA5. Bertelsmann AG 15 Germany6. News Corporation 13 Australia7. Sony Corporation 9 Japan8. Reed Elsevier 7 The Netherlands9. Gannett Co., Inc. 6 USA

10. Pearson PLC 6 Great Britain

Source: Nordicom 2003

5 8

worth a great deal of money. How economic trans-actions are organized and the degree of concentra-tion of economic power in various branches play adecisive role in the globalization process. A coun-try’s place in the global pecking order is a functionof its ability to compete on the world market. Com-petitive strength is not only a question of efficiencyor economic rationality; many factors – political, so-cial and economic – play in. Samir Amin points outfive different monopolies that the dominant actorsmake use of to maintain and strengthen their holdon the market and that together form the frameworkin which globalization takes place. The five mo-nopolies relate to technology, finance, natural re-sources, media and communications, and weaponsof mass destruction. In the case of the media andcommunications, Amin gives the following motives:

[The media and communications] not onlylead to uniformity of culture but also openup new means of political manipulation. Theexpansion of the modern media market isalready one of the major components in theerosion of democratic practices in the Westitself. (Amin 1997:5)

The Media Situation in the Third World:Status Quo?The issues of cultural identity and the right to par-ticipate in international flows of information is re-lated to both national media structures in the devel-oping countries and the countries’ links to the glo-bal system. The only concrete political result of the

work on a NWICO within UNESCO was a focus ondevelopment of national media in the third worldthrough, among other things, increased developmentassistance.

Several countries in the third world still lack ad-equate infrastructure for modern mass media. Thishinders the countries’ development, while it alsoblocks their access to the international news andmedia system. The lack of electricity and telecom-munications in much of developing countries’ terri-tory is one key problem. Other hindrances reside inthe realm of national media policy. Those who canchange the situation are not always motivated to doso; those who want to change the situation are notalways in a position to.

An examination of existing international statis-tics in the communications sector shows some im-provement in the countries of the third world sincethe 1970s, in some countries more than others. Forexample, the density of radio and television receiv-ers has risen, as has newspaper circulation. Particu-larly the broadcast media have expanded. In themid-1960s UNESCO recommended that each coun-try should have at least 20 TV sets, 50 radio receiv-ers and 100 newspaper copies per thousand inhab-itants. In 1980, the MacBride report notes that 100countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America had notreached these minimum standards by the mid-1970s. Ten years later, five countries were still be-low the three standards, and an additional 55 werebelow at least one of them. African countries pre-dominated among these least developed countrieswith respect to the media (Beam 1992). Ten yearsfurther down the line, the figures have further im-

Table 2. Media Densities in the World 1970 and 1997. Units per Thousand Inhabitants

Daily newspapers Radio receivers TV sets1970 1996 1970 1997 1970 1997

The world, total 107 96 245 418 81 240Africa 12 16 93 216 4.6 60America 170 141 698 1 017 209 429Asia 49 66 81 255 20 190Europe 281 261 465 729 205 446Oceania 269 227 779 1 071 188 427

Developing countries 29 60 90 245 9.9 157Sub-Saharan Africa 10 12 83 202 1.5 48Arab states 17 36 131 269 21 119Latin America & Caribbean 76 101 196 412 57 205Eastern Asia & Oceania 26 56 97 306 3.3 253Southern Asia 12 33 34 118 0.9 54

Least developed countries 4.5 8 56 142 0.5 23

Developed countries 292 226 643 1 061 263 548

Source: UNESCO 2003

5 9

proved – in some countries, but not others. Again,the poorest countries of Africa lag behind. In sev-eral developing countries, the pace of progress inthe media sector has been quite slow, particularly inrural areas, where a majority of the people live.

In the world as a whole, it is estimated that thereis about 250 television sets per thousand inhabit-ants, a considerably greater share than have a tel-ephone (Human Development Report 2002). In lessthan a decade, from the mid-1980s to the mid 1990s– the number of television channels in the worlddoubled, as did average viewing time and the numberof TV sets in households. Satellite television is ac-cessible worldwide; transnational satellite channelshave vastly increased the volume of programmingavailable, and numerous niche channels carry spe-cialized content to various target audiences – notleast young viewers. In developing countries, whichhave experienced rapid deregulation, many Western-style radio and television channels now serve urbanareas. Feature films, serial drama, talk shows andmusic predominate. Still, not everyone has access totelevision. In the poorest countries the estimateddensity of television sets per thousand people is nomore than 23 (UNESCO 2003).

Radio is still the medium that reaches the mostpeople. The fact that a good share of the thirdworld still lacks electricity makes radio crucially im-portant outside urban areas. Between 1970 and1997, the density of radio receivers in developingcountries increased from 90 to 245 per thousand in-habitants (Table 2).

In the interval 1970-1997, newspaper circulationin the developing countries doubled, from 29 to 60per thousand. Circulation nearly doubled in theleast developed countries, as well: from 4.5 perthousand in 1970 to 8 per thousand in 1997. Stillfar below the UNESCO recommendations of themid-1960s (100 per 1000 inhabitants).

The Internet is generally considered the cardinalexample of “the digital revolution”. In 2002, an esti-mated ten per cent of the world population had ac-cess to the Internet. More than three-quarters of to-day’s Internet users are to be found in the wealthiest(OECD) countries, which have 14 per cent of theworld population. Only one per cent are located inAfrica. (Carlsson 2002). Thus, we find a huge gap be-tween different parts of the world – ‘the digital di-vide’ is as wide today as it ever was. Most prognos-ticators say that the new information technology willmake a tremendous difference in the future, but that amajority of the people of the world will not have ac-cess to the Net. The lack of telecommunications in-

frastructure in regions of Africa, Asia and LatinAmerica will keep many people in the margins.

Internet is known to be the younger generation’smedium par excellence. But in Africa, SouthAmerica and a good part of Asia, the share of child-ren and young people who have Internet access isonly a couple of per cent. Meanwhile, roughly 80per cent of Swedish children have Internet access athome. Children and young people in the wealthiestcountries of the world are a truly multimedia gen-eration, whereas many of the children in the worldcannot watch television, and books are in short sup-ply.

The IPDC was inaugurated to accelerate the ex-pansion of mass media in the third world. But, aftertwenty years, the results of the program are mod-est, to say the least. In some instances supportmade possible through the IPDC has significantlycontributed to regional news exchanges, and to someextent the IPDC may be credited with having facili-tated news gathering. But all too often, nationalmedia policy has stood in the way of internationalnews exchange and news gathering across nationalfrontiers.

IPDC operations have been criticized widely,and in 1995 reforms designed to make the programmore efficient got under way. But at the same timeit is difficult to see how the IPDC can help to cre-ate functional media structures. The establishmentof modern communications infrastructure is muchtoo costly for any one development program. De-regulation in the third world has opened the door tocompetition, privatization and foreign ownership,but this route to development often implies new de-pendency relationships.

The conditions found in the third world in the1970s are largely unchanged in the 100-odd coun-tries that have experienced a slow pace of develop-ment and are still politically and economically de-pendent on other countries. In these countries, thesituation described in the MacBride Commission’sreport still applies.

A Third Development ParadigmThe new world information order, as formulated bythe non-aligned countries, was clearly linked to thedependence paradigm, particularly the elements,decolonization and demonopolization. But thedocuments also contained an indication of a newposition in the countries’ quest for their own pathstoward development and communication; it had todo with independence, self-determination and cul-

6 0

tural identity. The demand for a new internationalinformation order may be seen as a reaction to themodernization paradigm.

The MacBride Commission was clearly influ-enced by the non-aligned states’ ideas. Self-relianceand cultural identity were key principles in the Com-mission’s recommendations. Concepts like accessand participation were made explicit. The Commis-sion also introduced the local level and horizontalcommunication into thinking about development.There was also a hint of the idea that the causes ofunderdevelopment might be found in the developedand the developing countries alike. This ‘new’ viewwas also expressed in the IPDC resolution of 1980.

The MacBride Commission’s recommendationswere hardly unequivocal, however. The ambiguitieswere particularly apparent in the Commission’streatment of communication technology and techno-logical development. Here the Commission’s think-ing alternated between the modernization and de-pendency paradigms; the concept of neocolonialismconfronted decolonialization. But, above all, the rec-ommendations suggested a third, alternative con-cept of development.

In the early 1980s, some scholars and develop-ment experts began speaking of ‘another develop-ment’, a term first coined in 1978 in DevelopmentDialogue, the journal published by the Dag Ham-marskjöld Foundation. Here, key concepts are cul-tural identity and self-reliance and access and par-ticipation. This third approach may be character-ized as a reaction to both the modernization and de-pendency paradigms. Universal models, which ofnecessity are always simplistic, are rejected in favorof an emphasis on the characteristics and needs ofeach individual country and the conviction that de-velopment efforts must start with specific condi-tions and needs. Social, economic, cultural and reli-gious components of development are identified;and the focus rests more often on local conditionsthan on the nation or international relations. This isnot to say that relationships of international inter-dependency were ignored. An oft-cited phrase was,“Global problems, local solutions”. Adherents ofthis approach also regarded traditional values as animportant factor for fostering a sense of identityand meaning and a source of continuity in the face ofsocial change. At the same time, democratic proc-esses and regard for human rights were kept in fo-cus. (Hedebro 1982, Kothari 1984, Jayaweera 1987,Kumar 1994, Mowlana 1988, Servaes 1989, Yoon1996)

In most recent decades, much of the work on ‘an-other development’ has focused on the concept ofmultiplicity, a concept introduced by Jan Servaes inthe late 1980s. The principal features of ‘the multi-plicity model’ may be summarized in five points:

1. All nations are interdependent in one sense oranother. Internal as well as external factors cantherefore influence the development process.

2. Development should be considered in a globalcontext, in which both Center and Periphery, aswell as their interrelated subdivisions, are takeninto account.

3. There is no generally applicable model of devel-opment; each country must devise its own de-velopment strategy.

4. Development comes of self-reliance and culturalidentity.

5. Development requires access to and participa-tion in local communication systems, that is tosay, horizontal communication (Servaes 1997,1999, 2002).

This third development paradigm is characterizedby pluralism. Thinking about participatory commu-nication for social change has also been elaborated.The approach is decidedly normative. The research-ers and field workers who subscribe to this schoolof thought often work on local projects to createthe preconditions for new communicative situa-tions, often on a ‘grassroots’ level. (See further, forexample, the work of J Servaes, J D Bordenave, J EFair, T L Jacobson, K J Kumar, R Lie, S A White.)

The links between this third paradigm of develop-ment and the NWICO debate and the ideas implicit inthe MacBride resolution are obvious. Concepts likeself-reliance and cultural identity took their place onthe international agenda and thus won political ac-ceptance on the conceptual level. The MacBrideCommission involved social scientists – sociologists,political scientists, educationalists, media scholars,and so forth – and other experts from all parts of theworld, which ensured the inclusion of many of theconcepts that were to recur in both theory and prac-tice in ensuing decades. It is difficult, however, to dis-tinguish cause from effect. In all probability thepresent position is to be credited the mutual ex-changes between regions, academic disciplines, ex-perts, politicians, etc., that the discussion of aNWICO and, not least, the MacBride Commissionbroke ground for.

6 1

From a Vision for NWICO andInternational Regulation to an Eraof Multilevel Governance and WSIS

The 1970s were a period of widespread criticism ofestablished political systems and quests for alterna-tives to them. After the optimistic faith in technol-ogy and political solutions that characterized theearly postwar years the spirit of the 1970s pro-vided an aperture for a questioning of the interna-tional character and roles of mass media. Withquestioning came demands on the part of third-world countries for stronger international regulationof the media system, demands formalized in the callfor a new international information order. The issueof a New World Information and CommunicationOrder that occupied the UNESCO agenda of the1970s is unique in that for once, international diplo-macy and policy-makers acknowledged the interna-tional character of the media, their structures,world-views and markets.

Some of the developments of this past decadecould be discerned on the horizon even at the time ofthe endeavour for a NWICO. Indeed, increasing con-centration of media ownership, monopolization ofmarkets, and a decline in diversity were among thecomplaints the third world countries and othersraised. But, it was quite impossible to envisage thebreadth and depth of what was to come in the closingdecades of the century. The globalization in the mediasystem spurred by deregulation and privatization,concentration, commercialization and, not least, newinformation technology, could not be foreseen in itsmanifold entirety. It was these developments that ul-timately sealed the fate of NWICO as an issue.

The globalization of the media has acceleratedand the digital divide has widened in recent years,and international information and media issues areonce again in focus on the international agenda. Theconsequences of strong actors’ operations on theglobal media market also occupy many media schol-ars today. Even if the points of departure and termsof reference used today are quite different fromthose of the 1970s, ’development’ is still bound upwith the modernist project of the Western world.Today, however, solutions to the problems and is-sues are not sought in top-down steering and regu-lations on an international scale. Contemporary so-ciety is far too complex for that, and discouragesthe thought of ’a new international order’ of the

sort envisaged in the 1970s. Now we see the era ofmultilevel governance of the media and communica-tion system – the interplay between many differentactors, public and private, on multiple levels, fromthe local to the global.

One of the main items on the agenda today is TheWorld Summit on the Information Society, WSIS. Ar-ranged by the International Telecommunication Un-ion (ITU) in partnership with, among others,UNESCO, under the high patronage of the UN Secre-tary-General, the WSIS will be held in two sessions:December 2003 in Geneva and November 2005 inTunis. The “anticipated” outcome of the Summit is“to develop and foster a clear statement of politicalwill and a concrete plan of action for achieving thegoals of the Information Society, while fully reflect-ing all the different interests at stake” (www.itu.int/wsis/basic/about). One of the fundamental ideas be-hind the WSIS has been to create a more inclusive In-formation Society and to bridge the digital divide in aNorth-South perspective. Over the course of a seriesof Preparatory Committee meetings the agenda of thesession in Geneva appears to have become orientedtoward telecommunication and Internet-related issuesin an increasingly technical perspective.

Many voices, not least within the civil society,have called for more attention to media, humanrights and communication rights in the final docu-ment from the WSIS. That is to say, the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights, not least its Article19 which emphasizes freedom of expression, andthe principles of the free flow of information, thefree circulation of ideas, freedom of the press, par-ticipation in the communication process, the right tocommunicate, cultural diversity, and so forth areonce again in focus. It will require hard work to en-sure that the Information Society, or the KnowledgeSociety in UNESCO’s usage, is equate with the at-tainment of basic economic, social and politicalrights for people around the world. The significanceof the WSIS will depend on the extent to which na-tional governments, the private sector, the civil so-ciety and other relevant stakeholders are broughtinto the continued work toward these goals.

The challenges facing those engaged in issues ofdevelopment and mass communication are thus manyand multifaceted. The politicians, practitioners andresearchers in this sector must be mindful of the pastand of the shadows it casts, yet take care not to mis-take those shadows for the realities of the day.

6 2

Notes

1. The findings of the study are reported in full inUlla Carlsson: Frågan om en ny internationellinformationsordning; en studie i internationellmediepolitik (The issue of a New World and Infor-mation Order; a study in media politics). Göteborg:Göteborg University, Dept. of Journalism and MassCommunication, 1998.

2. The documents analyzed cover the period 1973-1980. They are:Action Programme for Economic Co-operationof the 4th Summit Conference of the Non-AlignedCountries. Alger, Algeria August 1973.Report of the Non-Aligned Symposium on Infor-mation. Tunis, Tunisia 30 March 1976.Declaration of the Ministerial Conference of Non-Aligned Countries on Decolonization of Informa-tion. New Delhi, India 13 July 1976.Political Declaration of the 5th Summit Conferenceof Non-Aligned Countries. Colombo, Sri Lanka Au-gust 1976.First Meeting of Co-ordination Committee of theNon-Aligned News Agencies POOL. Cairo, Egypt10-12 January 1977.First Meeting of the Intergovernmental Councilfor Co-ordination of Information and the MassMedia in Non-Aligned Countries. Tunis, Tunisia28 February-1 March 1977.First Conference of Broadcasting Organization ofNon-Aligned Countries. Sarajevo, Yugoslavia 27-30 October 1977.Second Meeting of the Co-ordination Committeeof the Press Agencies POOL of Non-AlignedCountries. Djakarta, Indonesia 3-5 April 1978.Second Meeting of Intergovernmental Council forthe Co-ordination of Information of the Movementof Non-Aligned Countries. Havana, Cuba 17-20April 1978.Ministerial Meeting of the Co-ordinating Bureauof Non-Aligned Countries. Havana, Cuba 15-20May 1978.Third Meeting of the Co-ordination Committee ofthe Press Agencies POOL of Non-AlignedCountries. Kinshasa, Zaire 7-9 March 1979.Resolution on Co-operation and Activities of Non-Aligned Countries in Information of the ThirdMeeting of the Intergovernmental Council Co-ordination of Information Among Non-AlignedCountries. Lomé, Togo 26 April 1979.Political Declaration of the 6th Summit Conferenceof Non-Aligned Countries. Havana, Cuba 9 Sep-tember 1979.Statute of the News Agencies POOL of Non-Ali-gned Countries. Belgrade, Yugoslavia 24 Novem-ber 1979.Resolution of the New International InformationOrder to the Fourth Meeting of IntergovernmentalCouncil for Co-ordination of Information AmongNon-Aligned Countries. Baghdad, Iraq.

3. The CommissionFrom the West: Elie Abel, USA, journalist and Pro-fessor of Communication at Stanford University;Hubert Beuve-Mery, France, journalist and founderof Le Monde; Michio Nagai, Japan, journalist,sociologist, former Minister of Education; Johan-nes Pieter Pronk, The Netherlands, economist,politician; Betty Zimmerman, Canada, Director,Radio Canada International.From the East: Sergei Losev, USSR, Director, TASS;Bogdan Osolnik, Yugoslavia, journalist, politician;From the third world: Elebe Ma Ekonzo, Zaire,journalist, Director, Agence Zaire Presse; MochtarLubis, Indonesia, journalist, Chairman, Press Fo-undation of Asia; Gabriel Garcia Marques, Colom-bia, author and Nobel laureate; Mustapha Masmoudi,Tunisia, Permanent Delegate of Tunisia inUNESCO, former Minister of Information, Presi-dent, Intergovernmental Coordination, Council forInformation of the Non-Aligned Countries; FredIsaac Akporuaro Omu, Nigeria, professor, Univer-sity of Benin; Gamar El-Oteifi, Egypt, formerMinister of Information, journalist and jurist; JuanSomavia, Chile, Director, Instituto Latinamericanode Estudios Transnacionales (Mexico); Boobli Ge-orge Verghese, India, journalist.

4. This section is based on an analysis of Records ofthe General Conference 1980 (vols 1-3) and, morespecifically, Resolutions 4/19, InternationalCommission for the Study of CommunicationProblems, and 4/21, International Programme forthe Development of Communication. The‘legislative history’ of these documents has beenstudied, as well. The General Conferences take placein two arenas: the plenary sessions, (particularlythe general debate) and program commissions. Thegeneral debate consists of addresses by the headsof the national delegations. Introductory remarksare offered by the Chairman of the Board ofUNESCO and the Director-General, respectively.It is in the program commissions that the actualwork of the Conferences takes place: programsare proposed, budgets are drafted, and draftresolutions are formulated. The work done in thecommissions is submitted to the plenary, whosedecisions take the form of resolutions, some ofwhich guide the work of UNESCO, while othersare international agreements on specific issues. Thestatements of the delegations are recorded in ex-tenso and verbatim, whereas the proceedings ofthe commissions are minuted in summary.

5. This part of the article is based on an analysis ofUNESCO Records of the General Conference for1982, 1983, 1985, 1987 and 1989. The veryextensive and complex material in these documentswas treated using the same analytical scheme aswas applied to the recommendations of theMacBride Commission and the two resolutionsadopted at the 1980 General Conference (Chapter6). The prime focus of the analysis rests on the

6 3

minutes of the Programme Commissions and thetexts of adopted resolutions. Addresses in the ge-neral debate were also studied for information onthe political context and for factors that mighthave a bearing on the treatment of informationand communication issues during the period. IPDCprograms are described on the basis of an analysisof IPDC annual reports, which report currentobjectives, financing, the focus of current projectsand the countries involved. Additional materialhas been culled from other international and re-gional meetings and the observations of scholarsand politicians.

References

A Documentary History of a New World Information andCommunication Order Seen as an Evolving andContinuous Process 1975-1986. Paris: UNESCO(Communication and Society 19).

Amin, S. (1997) Capitalism in the Age of Globalization.London: Zed.

Bakdikian, B.H. (1997) The Media Monopoly (5th edit-ion). Boston: Beacon Press.

Baran, P. (1957) The Political Economy of Growth.New York: Monthly Review Press.

Bartelson, J. & Ringmar, E. (1985) Två fallstudier: USAlämnar ILO och UNESCO [Two case studies: TheUSA leaves the ILO and UNESCO], in Huldt, B. &Falk, M. (eds.) FN vid 40 – Internationellt samar-bete i kris. Stockholm: Utrikespolitiska Institutet.

Beam, S. (1992) Surveying the Territory: Re-examiningMacBride and Theories of Development. Gazette50(1992)2-3, 109-146.

Beltrán, L.R. (1980) Farewell to Aristotle: HorizontalCommunication. Communication (1980)5, 5-41.

Biernatzki, W. (ed.) (1992) The Internationalization ofCommunications Law. Communication ResearchTrends 12(1992)4, 1-27.

Bishop, R. (1975) How Reuters and AFP Coverage ofIndependent Africa Compares. Journalism Quar-terly 52(1975).

Bjereld, U. (1989) Svensk Mellanösternpolitik. En studieav Sveriges agerande och ställningstagandengentemot konflikterna i Mellanöstern 1947-1985 [Astudy of Swedish policy and postures vis-à-visconflicts in the Middle East 1947-19985], Stock-holm: Carlssons.

Blomström, M. & Hettne, B. (1984) DevelopmentTheory in Transition. The Dependency Debate andBeyond. London: Zed.

Boafo, S.T.K. (1987) Democratizing Media Systems inAfrican Societies: The Case of Ghana. Africa Me-dia Review 2(1987)1.

Bordenave, J.D. (1977) Communication and RuralDevelopment. Paris: UNESCO.

Boyd-Barrett, O. (1980) The International NewsAgencies. London: Sage.

Boyd-Barrett, O. (1997) Global News Wholesalers asAgents of Globalization, i Sreberny-Mohammadi,A. et al (eds.) Media in Global Context. A Reader.London: Arnold, 131-144.

Boyd-Barrett, O. (1997) International Communicationand Globalization: Contradictions and Directions,in Mohammadi, A. (ed.): International Commu-nication and Globalization. London: Sage, 11-26

Braman, S. & Sreberny-Mohammadi, A. (eds.) (1996)Globalization, Communication and TransnationalCivil Society. Cresskill: Hampton Press.

Breuning, Ch. (1987) Kommunikationspolitik derUNESCO. Dokumentation und Analyse der Jahre1946 bis 1987. Konstanz: Universitätsforlag Kon-stanz GmbH.

Cardoso, F.H. (1979) Dependency and Development inLatin America. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.

Carlsson, U. (1981) Nyheterna och tredje världen. Enöversikt av det internationella nyhetsflödet. [Newsand the third world; a study of international newsflows]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Carlsson, U. (1991) En ny internationell informations-ordning? En studie av MacBride-kommissionensarbete [A new international information order?The work of the MacBride Commission]. Göteborg:Göteborgs universitet, Institutionen för journali-stik och masskommunikation.

Carlsson, U. (1991) Det internationella nyhetsflödet.En ny internationell informations- och kommuni-kationsordning [International news flows; ANWICO]. Göteborg: JMG, Göteborgs universitet.

Carlsson, U. (1998) Frågan om en ny internationellinformationsordning; en studie i internationellmediepolitik [The issue of a New World and Infor-mation Order; a study in media politics]. Göteborg:Göteborg University, Dept. of Journalism and MassCommunication, 1998.

Carlsson, U. (2002) Foreword in Feilitzen, C. & Carls-son, U (eds) Children, Young People and MediaGlobalisation. Göteborg University:Nordicom

Curran, J. & Gurevitch M. (eds.) (1991, 2000) MassMedia and Society. London: Arnold.

D’Arcy, J. (1969) Direct Broadcast Satellites and theRight to Communicate. EBU Review 118.

Developing World Communications (1987). London:Grosvenor Press International.

Development Dialogue (1978)2, (1981)2, (1984)1-2,(1985)1, (1989)1.

Dinh van, T. (1987) Communication and Diplomacyin a Changing World. Norwood: Ablex.

Documents of the Non-Aligned Movement on the NewInternational Information and CommunicationOrder 1986-1987 (1988). Prague: InternationalOrganization of Journalists.

Dos Santos, T. (1970) The Structure of Dependency.American Economy Review 60(1970)21.

Downing, J.; Mohammadi, A. & Sreberny-Mohammadi,A. (1990) Questioning the Media – A CriticalIntroduction. London: Sage.

6 4

Dyvi, E.B. & Rønning, H. (1995) UNESCO’s Internatio-nal Programme for the Development of Com-munication (IPDC). A Desk Study. Oslo: Univer-sity of Oslo, Department of Media and Communica-tion.

Easton, D. (1965) A Framework for Political Analysis.Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Eek, H. (1979) Principles Governing the Use of theMass Media as Defined by the United Nations andUNESCO, in Nordenstreng, K. & Schiller, H. (eds.)National Sovereignty and International Commu-nication. Norwood: Ablex.

Eek, H.; Bring, O. & Hjerner, L. (1987) Folkrätten. Stater-nas och de mellanstatliga organisationernas rätts-ordning [International law. The legal systems ofnation-states and international organizations],Stockholm: Norstedts.

Ellingsen Tunold, B.M. (1984) The UNCLOS IIINegotiations and the Deep Sea-bed Regime: TheCommon Heritage of Mankind for the Benefit ofMankind as a Whole. Oslo: Fridtjof Nansens Institut.

Fascell, D.B. (ed.) (1979) International News. FreedomUnder Attack. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Featherstone, M.; Lash, S. & Robertson, R. (eds.) (1995)Global Modernities. London: Sage.

Fischer, D. (1982) The Right to Communicate: A StatusReport. Paris: UNESCO (Reports and Papers onMass Communication 49).

Flournoy, S.M. & Stewart, R.K. (1997) CNN MakingNews in the Global Market. Luton: John LibbeyMedia.

Frank, A. Gunder (1969) Capitalism and Underdevelop-ment in Latin America. New York: Monthly ReviewPress.

Galtung, J. (1971) A Structural Theory of Imperialism.Journal of Peace Research 8(1971)2, 81-118.

Galtung, J.; O’Brien, P. & Preiswerk, R. (eds.) (1980)Self-Reliance: A Strategy for Development. Lon-don: Bogle-L’Ouverture.

Garbo, G. (1983) The Role of the IPDC in the Imple-mentation of the New World Information and Com-munication Order. Presentation at Conference ofNAMEDIA, New Delhi, India 9-12 December 1983.

Garbo, G. (1984) Over alle grense. Den internasjonæleinformasjonsformidlingen, mediesamfunnet ogutviklingslandene [Across all frontiers: Interna-tional exchanges of information, the media soci-ety, and developing countries]. Oslo: Det KongligeUtrikesdepartement.

Gerbner, G. (1977) Mass Media Policies in ChangingCultures. New York: John Wiley.

Gerbner, G. (1993) UNESCO in the US Press, in Gerbner,G.; Mowlana, H. & Nordenstreng, K. (eds.) TheGlobal Media Debate: Its Rise, Fall, and Renewal.Norwood: Ablex.

Gerbner, G. & Siefert, M. (eds.) (1984) World Commun-ications. A Handbook. New York/London: Long-man.

Gerbner, G.; Mowlana, H. & Nordenstreng, K. (eds.)(1993) The Global Media Debate: It’s Rise, Fall,and Renewal. Norwood:Ablex.

Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outlineof the theory of Structuration. Cambridge: PolityPress.

Giddens, A. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity.Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity: Self andSociety in Late Modern Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Giddens, A. (1996) Modernitetens följder [The conse-quences of modernity]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Giffard, A.C. (1989) UNESCO and the Media. New York:Longman.

Goddard-Power, S. (1981) The U.S. View of Belgrade.Journal of Communication 3(1981)4.

Goddard-Power, S. (1984) UNESCO at Belgrade: TheU.S. View, in Gerbner, G. & Siefert, M. (eds.) WorldCommunications. New York/London: Longman.

Golding, P. & Harris, P. (eds.) (1997) Beyond CulturalImperialism. Globalization, Communication andthe New International Order. London: Sage.

Gonzalez, J. (1997) The Willingness to Weave: CulturalAnalysis, Cultural Fronts and Networks of theFuture. Media Development (1997)1, 30-40.

Goodrich, L.M. (1974) The United Nations in a Chang-ing World. New York: Columbia University Press.

Gross, L. (1979) Some International Law Aspects ofthe Freedom of Information and the Right toCommunicate, in Nordenstreng, K. & Schiller, H.(eds.) National Sovereignty and International Com-munication. Norwood: Ablex.

Hamelink, C. (1979) The New International EconomicOrder and the New International Information Or-der. Paris: UNESCO (International Commissionfor the Study of Communication Problems 34).

Hamelink, C. (1980) Communication in the Eighties: AReader on the MacBride Report. Rome: IDOC.

Hamelink, C. (1989) UNESCO: the New InternationalInformation Order, i Everts, P. & Walraven, G.(eds.) The Politics of Persuasion. Aldershot: Ave-bury.

Hamelink, C. (1997) MacBride with Hindsight, in Gold-ing, P. & Harris, P. (eds.) Beyond CulturalImperialism. Globalization, Communication andthe New International Order. London: Sage.

Hamelink, C. (1997) The Politics of World Communi-cation. London: Sage.

Hamelink, C. & Pavlic, B. (1985) The New InternationalEconomic Order: Links Between Economics andCommunications. Paris: UNESCO (Reports andPapers on Mass Communication 98).

Harley, W.G. (1981) The U.S. State in IPDC. Journalof Communication 3(1981)4.

Harley, W.G. (1984) UNESCO and the InternationalProgramme for the Development of Communica-tions, in Gerbner, G. & Siefert, M. (eds.) World Com-munications. New York/London: Longman.

6 5

Harris, P. (1976) International News Media Authorityand Dependence. Instant Research on Peace andViolence (1976)4.

Harris, P. (1976) Selective Images: An Analysis of theWest African Wire Service of an International NewsAgency. Paper prepared for the fourth session ofthe IAMCR 10th General Assembly and ScientificConference, University of Leicester 30 August-4September 1976.

Hedebro, G. (1982) Communication and Social Changein Developing Nations: A Critical View. Ames: IowaState University Press.

Held, D. McGrew, Godblatt&Perraton (1999): Globaltransformations: Politics, Economics and Culture.Cambridge: Polity Press

Herman, E.S. & McChesney (1997) The Global Media.The New Missionaries of Corporate Capitalism.London: Cassel.

Hettne, B (1990) Development Theory and the ThreeWorlds. New York: Longman

Hjarvard, S. (1995) Internationale TV-nyheder. En histo-risk analyse af det europæiske system for udvekslingaf TV-nyheder [International TV news; An histo-rical analysis of the European news exchange sys-tem]. Århus: Akademisk forlag.

Hjarvad, S. (ed) (2001) News in a Globalized Society.Göteborg: Nordicom, Göteborg University

Holsti, K.J. (1967) International Politics. A Frameworkfor Analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall

Human Development Report 1997-2002. UNDP, NewYork: Oxford University Press

Höhne, H. (1977) Report über Nachrichtenagenturen.1. Die Situation auf den Nachrichtenmärkten derWelt. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.

Innis, H. (1972) Empire and Communications. Toron-to: University of Toronto Press.

Jacobson, T. (1994) Modernization and Post-Moderni-zation Approaches to Participatory Communica-tion for Development, in White, S. (ed.): Partici-patory Communication. Working for Change andDevelopment. London: Sage, 60-75.

Jacobson. T. (1997) Conclusion: Prospects for the Theo-retical Development, in Servaes, J. et al (eds.) Parti-cipatory Communication for Change. London: Sage,266-277.

Jayaweera, N. & Amunugama, S. (eds.) (1987) Rethink-ing Development Communication. Singapore: AsianMass Communication Research and InformationCentre.

Journal of Communication 31(1981)4, 32(1982)4, 34(1984)4, 35(1985)4.

Karlsson, S. (1993) USA, oljan och världsordningen [TheUSA, oil and the world order]. Stockholm: Nere-nius & Santérus.

Katz, E. & Szecskó, T. (eds.) (1981) Mass Media andSocial Change. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Kothari, R. (1984) Communication for AlternativeDevelopment: Towards a Paradigm. DevelopmentDialogue (1984).

Kumar, K. (1994) Communication Approaches toParticipation and Development: Challenging theAssumptions and Perspectives, in White S. (ed.):Participatory Communication. Working for Changeand Development. London: Sage, 76-94

Lerner, D. (1958) The Passing of Traditional Society.Glencoe: Free Press.

Lerner, D. & Schramm, W. (eds.) (1967) Communicationand Change in Developing Countries. Honolulu:East-West Center.

Levin, H.J. (1984) U.S. Communication Policies atHome and Abroad: Are they Consistent?, in Gerb-ner, G. & Siefert, M. (eds.) World Communications.New York/London: Longman.

MacBride, S. (1979) Shaping a New World InformationOrder. Paris: UNESCO (International Commissionfor the Study of Communication Problems 33).

MacBride, S. & Roach, C. (1993) The New InternationalInformation Order, in Gerbner, G.; Mowlana, H. &Nordenstreng, K. (eds.) The Global Media Debate:Its Rise, Fall and Renewal. Norwood: Ablex.

Many Voices, One World: Communication and Society.Today and Tomorrow (1980). Paris: UNESCO/Lon-don: Kogan Page (final report of the InternationalCommission for the Study of Communication Prob-lems).

Martín-Barbero, J. (1993) Communication, Culture andHegemony. From Media to Mediations. London:Sage.

Masmoudi, M. (1978) The New World Information Or-der. Paris: UNESCO (International Commission forthe Study of Communication Problems 31).

Mattelart, A. (1996) La mondialisation de la communi-cation. Paris: Presse Universitaires de France.

McClelland, D.C. (1961) The Achieving Society.Princeton: Van Nostrand.

McChesney, R.W. (1999) Rich Media, Poor Democracy:Communication Politics in Dubious Timees.Urbana: University of Illinois Press

McQuail, D. (1984) Masskommunikationsteori [Masscommunication theory]. Stockholm: Liber.

McQuail, D. (1987) Mass Communication Theory. AnIntroduction. London: Sage.

Mehan, J.A. (1981) UNESCO and the U.S. Action andReaction. Journal of Communication 31(1981)4.

Moemeka, A. (1988) Mass Media and Rational Domi-nation: A Critical Review of a Dominant Para-digm. Africa Media Review 3(1988)1.

Mohammadi, A. (ed.) (1997) International Communi-cation and Globalization. A Critical Introduction.London: Sage.

Monographs I, II, III (1978) Paris: UNESCO (Internatio-nal Commission for the Study of CommunicationProblems 13, 14, 15).

Mosco, V. & Wasko, J. (eds.) (1984) The CriticalCommunications Review. Vol II Changing Patternsof Communications Control. Norwood: Ablex.

Mowlana, H. (1997) Global Information and WorldCommunication. London: Sage.

6 6

Mowlana, H. & Wilson, L. (1988) Communication Tech-nology and Development. Paris: UNESCO (Reportsand Papers on Mass Communications 101).

Mowlana, H. & Wilson, L. (1990) The Passing of Mo-dernity: Communication and the Transformationof Society. White Plains: Longman.

New International Information and CommunicationOrder. Sourcebook (1986). Prague: InternationalOrganization of Journalists.

Nordenstreng, K. (1984) The Mass Media Declarationof UNESCO. Norwood: Ablex.

Nordenstreng, K. (1984) Defining the New Internatio-nal Information Order, i Gerbner, G. & Siefert, M.(eds.) World Communications. New York/London:Longman.

Nordenstreng, K. & Schiller, H. (eds.) (1993) BeyondNational Sovereignty: International Communica-tion in the 1990s. Norwood: Ablex.

Nordenstreng, K. & Varis, T. (1974) Television Traffic –A One-Way Street. A Survey and Analysis of theInternational Flow of Television Programme Ma-terial. Paris: UNESCO (Reports and Papers on MassCommunication 70).

Nostbakken, D. & Morrow, C. (1993) Cultural Expres-sion in the Global Village. Penang: Southbound.

Orek, O. (1978) Development Journalism and PressFreedom. An African View Point. Gazette 24(1978)

Our Creative Diversity. Report of the World Commissionon Culture and Development (1995). Paris:UNESCO.

Peters, B.G. and Pierre, J. (2001) ”Multilevel Governan-ce: A Faustian Bargain?” paper presented at a theConference ”Multilevel Governance: Inter-disciplinary Perspectives”, Political Economy Re-search Centre, University of Sheffield, UK, 29-23June 2001

Petersson, H.F. (1964) Power and International Order.Lund: Gleerups.

Ploman, E. (1982) International Law Governing Com-munications and Information: A Collection of BasicDocuments. Westport: Greenwood.

Reyes Matta, F. (1981) A Model for Democratic Com-munication. Development Dialogue (1981)2, 79-91.

Richstad, J. & Anderson, M.H. (eds.) (1981) Crisis inInternational News: Policies and Prospects. NewYork: Columbia University Press.

Roach, C. (1993) American Textbooks vs NWICOHistory, in Global Media Debate:Its Rise, Fall,and Renewal. Norwood: Ablex.

Robertson, R. (1992) Globalization. Social Theory andGlobal Culture. London: Sage.

Rogers, E.M. (1962) Diffusion of Innovations. NewYork: Free Press.

Rogers, E.M. (ed.) (1976) Communication and Develop-ment. Critical Perspectives. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Rogers, E.M. & Shoemaker, F. (1971) Communicationof Innovation. A Cross-Cultural Approach. NewYork: Free Press.

Rosenau, J.N. (ed.) (1969) International Politics andForeign Policy. New York: Free Press.

Said, E.W (1994) Culture and Imperialism. London:Vintage.

Schiller, H. (1976) Communication and Cultural Domi-nation. White Plains: International Arts andScience Press.

Schramm, W. (1964) Mass Media and National Develop-ment. The Role of Information in the DevelopingCountries. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Schramm, W. & Lerner, D. (eds.) (1976) Communicationand Change: The Last Ten Years – And the Next.Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.

Schramm, W. (1979) Mass Media and NationalDevelopment – 1979. Paris: UNESCO (Internatio-nal Commission for the Study of CommunicationProblems 42).

Schudson, M. (1991) Historical Approaches to Commu-nication Studies, in Jensen K.B. & Jankowski, N.W.(eds.): A Handbook of Qualitative Methodologiesfor Mass Communication Research. London: Rout-ledge.

Seliger, M. (1976) Ideology and Politics. London: Allen& Unwin.

Servaes, J. (1989) One World, Multiple Cultures. A NewParadigm on Communication for Development.Leuven: Acco.

Servaes, J. (2002) Communication for Development.One World, Multiple Cultures. Cresskill, New Jer-sey: Hampton Press.

Servaes, J. & Lie, R. (eds.) (1997) Media and Politics inTransition. Cultural Identity in the Age ofGlobalization. Leuven: Acco.

Servaes, J.; Jacobson, T.L. & White, S.A. (eds.) (1997)Participatory Communication for Social Change.London: Sage.

Singh, K. & Gross, B. (1981) MacBride: The Reportand the Response. Journal of Communication31(1981)4.

Somavía, J. (1981) The Democratization of Communi-cations: From Minority Social Monopoly to Majo-rity Social Representation. Development Dialogue(1981)2.

Sparks, C. & Roach, C. (1990) Farewell to NWICO?Media, Culture and Society 12(1990)3, 275-281.

Splichal, S. (1990) NWICO – Dead or Alive? MacBrideRound Table on Communication in Harare, 27-29October 1989. Media, Culture and Society12(1990)3.

Sreberny-Mohammadi, A.; Nordenstreng, K.; Steven-son, R.L. & Ugboajah, F. (1984) Foreign News inthe Media: International Reporting in Twenty-nineCountries. Paris: UNESCO (Reports and Paperson Mass Communication 93).

Sreberny-Mohammadi, A.; Winseck, D.; McKenna, J.& Boyd-Barrett, O. (eds.) (1997) Media in GlobalContext. A Reader. London: Arnold.

Szecskó, T. & Katz, E. (1981) Mass Media and SocialChange. London: Sage.

6 7

Tankha, B. (ed.) (1995) Communications and Demo-cracy. Ensuring Plurality. Penang: Southbound.

Tehranian, M. (1985) Paradigms Lost: Developmentas Communication and Learning. Media Develop-ment 32(1985)4, 5-8.

Tehranian, M. (1994) Is There a New World Order?Journal of International Communication (1994)2,71-99.

The Flow of News (1953). Zürich: IPI.The Right to Communicate (1979). Paris: UNESCO (In-

ternational Commission for the Study of Commu-nication Problems 36, 37, 38).

Thompson, J.B. (1995) The Media and Modernity. ASocial Theory of the Media. Cambridge: PolityPress.

Tomaselli, K. (1996) The Need for Global Solidarity.Media Development (1996)3, 27-31.

Tomlinson. J. (1991) Cultural Imperialism. London:Pinter Publishers.

Touraine, A. (1992) Critique de la modernité. Paris:Fayard.

Traber, M. & Nordenstreng, K. (eds.) (1992) Few Voices,Many Worlds: Towards a Media Reform Movement.London: World Association for Christian Com-munication.

Tunstall, J. (1977) The Media are American. Anglo-American Media in the World. London: Constable.

UNESCO Statistical Yearbook. www.unesco.org/uis(2003-03-03).

Wallerstein, I. (1984) The Politics of the World-Eco-nomy: The States the Movements and the Civiliza-tions. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Varis, T. & Jokelin, R. (1976) Television News in Europe.A Survey of the News-Film Flow in Europe. Tam-pere: University of Tampere, Institute of Journa-lism and Mass Communication.

Wasko, J. & Splichal, S. (eds.) (1992) Communication& Democracy. Norwood: Ablex.

Vedung, E. (1977) Det rationella politiska samtalet. Hurpolitiska budskap tolkas, ordnas och prövas [Theinterpretation, ordering and testing of politicalmessages]. Stockholm: Aldus.

White, S. (ed.) (1994) Participatory Communication.Working for Change and Development. London:Sage.

Worsley, P. (1984) The Three Worlds: Culture and WorldDevelopment. Chicago: The University of Chi-cago Press.

Yoon, C.S. (1996) Participatory Communication forDevelopment, in Bessette G. & Rajasunderam C.V.(eds.) Participatory Development Communication.A West African Agenda. Penang: Southbound.