After the adoption of a new Constitution and the state's increased focus on national and information security, a natural question arises: how well do the current rules for foreign journalists and bloggers in Kazakhstan match the new realities? This is reported by infohub.kz.
Today, the activities of foreign media in the country are regulated, among other things, through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. However, in practice, the question remains of how to control what foreign correspondents actually film, where they conduct their shooting, and how the collected material is used.
At the same time, this is not about restricting journalistic activity or freedom of speech. The question is different: should foreign citizens carrying out professional activities on the territory of Kazakhstan comply with clear and understandable rules, especially when it comes to sensitive facilities and information?
Similar mechanisms exist in democratic states as well. For example, in France, foreign journalists working as permanent correspondents undergo an established procedure for obtaining a press card. For journalists from countries outside the European Union, additional immigration formalities are provided. In addition, in France, filming in public places in some cases requires prior permission, and for work at facilities and monuments, coordination with the organizations responsible for them is necessary.
In the United Kingdom, there are also special legal regimes for protecting sensitive facilities. Legislation provides for liability for certain types of activities near so-called prohibited places — the most sensitive facilities from a national security standpoint. At the same time, British authorities separately emphasize that journalistic activity itself is not criminalized: what matters is the purpose of the actions and the existence of relevant restrictions.
Even in ordinary government institutions in the UK, a film crew may be required to provide data on team members in advance, obtain permission, and comply with established access rules. For example, such requirements apply when filming at the National Archives. Thus, international practice shows: freedom of journalism and state security requirements can exist simultaneously.
Against the backdrop of developing digital technologies, the line between a journalist, a blogger, a streamer, and an independent content creator is becoming increasingly blurred. One person with a camera and a smartphone today can quickly gather and disseminate information to an audience of millions. Therefore, there is a need not so much for tightening for the sake of tightening, but for revising and specifying current approaches:
clearly define the rules for the work of foreign journalists and bloggers;
distinguish between journalistic activity and ordinary tourism;
establish a clear procedure for filming at sensitive facilities;
increase liability for violating established requirements;
ensure a transparent system of accreditation and control;
at the same time guarantee lawful journalistic activity and access to socially significant information.
The question today is not whether to let foreign journalists into Kazakhstan. The question is how much current rules allow simultaneously ensuring the country's openness, freedom of journalism, and national security.
Given the new realities of information warfare and the digital spread of content, the need to revise these approaches looks increasingly urgent.