2002/2003 Yearbook of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media

REPRESENTATIVE O N FREEDO M O F THE MEDIA

Freedom an d Respon sibility

YEARBO O K 2002/2003 Vienna 2003

The cover is a draw ing entitled Des Schreibers Hand (The Writer’s Hand) by the Germ an author and Nobel prize laureate (1999) Günter Grass. He has kindly let our O ffice use this as a label for publications of the O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media.

The draw ing w as created in the context of Grass’s novel Das Treffen in Telgte, dealing w ith literary authors at the tim e of the Thirty Years War.

© 2003 O rganization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (O SCE) O ffice of the Representative on Freedom of the Media Kärntner Ring 5-7, Top 14, 2. DG, A-1010 Vienna Telephone: +43-1 512 21 450 Telefax: +43-1 512 21 459 E-m ail: pm -fom @osce.org w w w.osce.org/fom The authors retain rights on the essay texts.

Design: WerkstattKrystianBieniek, Vienna Printed: Die Drucker, Vienna

Freedo m and Respo nsibility What We Have Done, Why We Do It – Texts, Reports, Essays, N GO s

Co ntents

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer Preface Freim ut Duve Introduction

I.

9 13

Internet Felipe Rodriquez and Karin Spaink Rights and Regulatio ns

23

Hans J. Kleinsteuber The D igital Age

31

II. View s and Co mmentaries Mass Media in Central Asia Central Asian Jo urnalists Speak abo ut Media Freedo m and Co rruptio n

41

Jacqueline Godany The War in Iraq and its Impact o n Jo urnalists and Jo urnalism

45

Freim ut Duve Freedo m and Respo nsibility Media in Multilingual So cieties

63

Milo Dor Co nference Address: Media in Multilingual So cieties

71

Johannes von Dohnanyi The Impact o f Media Co ncentratio n o n Pro fessio nal Jo urnalism

75

Freim ut Duve The Spiegel Affair

79

Achim Koch Mo bile Culture Co ntainer

83

Freim ut Duve In D efence o f o ur Future?

89

Besnik, age 17, Mitrovica Gro w ing O ld Yo ung

93

Sevji, age 16, Bitola As If No thing Had Ever Happened

97

III. O ur Wo rk – What We Think, Why It Matters Personal Reflections by Staff Members Jutta Wolke The Caffeine Facto r: New s fro m the Co ffee Ho use

103

Alexander Ivanko Hate Speech: To Pro secute o r no t to Pro secute, that is the Q uestio n

111

Christiane Hardy Investigative, Underco ver and Embedded Jo urnalism

123

Hanna Vuokko The Transfo rmatio n or Ho mage to Kafka

135

Ana Karlsreiter The Value o f $20,000

141

Christian MĂśller First Amendment Freedo m Fighters?

149

Andrey Kalikh The Eye o f the Sto rm

159

IV. O verview – What We Have D o ne Mandate of the O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media

171

Repo rts and Statements to the O SCE Perm anent Council and O ther O SCE Fora

175

Repo rt o n the Media Situatio n in Chechnya

224

Jo int D eclaratio n by O SCE, UN and O AS London, 10 December 2002

279

Pro jects 2002/ 2003 Freedom of the Media and Corruption Fourth Central Asian M edia Conference, Tashkent, 26-27 Sept. 2002

282

Freedom of the Media and the Internet Workshop, Vienna, 30 N ovember 2002

284

Public Service Broadcasting: New Challenges, New Solutions M eeting, Ljubljana, 10-11 M arch 2003

285

War: Im ages and Language – Coverage of Conflicts in the Media, 1991-2003 Round Table with UNIS, Vienna, 17-18 M arch 2003

288

Media in Multilingual Societies Conference, Bern, 28-29 M arch 2003

291

Freedom of the Media and the Internet Conference, Amsterdam, 13-14 June 2003

292

Principles for Guaranteeing Editorial Independence Round Table, Berlin, 16 July 2003 295

Media in Multicultural and Multilingual Societies Fifth Central Asian M edia Conference, Bishkek, 17-18 Sept. 2003 297 Libel and Insult Law s Conference, Paris, 24-25 N ovember 2003 Visits and Interventio ns in 2002/ 2003

299 302

Media NGO s in the O SCE Regio n

311

Bo o ks Published by The O SCE Representative o n Freedo m o f the Media

314

Autho rs

317

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer Preface

From the outset, the Netherlands has been closely involved in the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, later the O rganization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

Throughout this tim e, the Netherlands’ attention has focused, in particular, on hum an rights issues and the hum an dim ension of the O SCE’s w ork. Against this background the Netherlands endeavoured to take an active stance w hile holding the Chairm anship of the O SCE in 2003.

In the past year the O SCE has w itnessed a num ber of innovative developm ents and activities w here the Chairm anship could act as facilitator and, som etim es, as initiator. Let m e m ention a few of these. The first Annual Security Review Conference w as held in Vienna in June 2003. This w as the first tim e that the participating States had review ed the fulfilm ent of O SCE com m itm ents in security policy and arm s control. We are also looking into w ays of im proving the functioning and effectiveness of the organization’s field operations. We all realize that the O SCE’s strength lies in its w ork at field level and w e should lose no opportunity to im prove these operations still further.

But there is m ore. Last year the Porto Ministerial Conference m ade it clear that the O SCE participating States w ere eager to adopt a new strategy on “New threats and challenges for the 21st century”. The O SCE is in the process of developing a strategy.

A great deal of preparatory w ork has been done to enable us to tackle som e of the m ost intractable problem s w e are currently facing in the O SCE region. I refer to, am ong others, JAAP DE H O O P SCHEFFER

9

trafficking, particularly trafficking in hum an beings, and com bating terrorism w hile at the sam e tim e upholding hum an rights. Sem inars and round tables have been held to exchange view s and experiences on these topics, w ith the active participation of outside experts. Action plans have been adopted to im plem ent the recom m endations.

Within the O SCE as a w hole, the O ffice of the Representative on Freedom of the Media is of prim e im portance. Peacebuilding efforts take place in a highly charged and unstable m edia environm ent. The goal of peacebuilding, after all, is to enhance the capacity of a society to m anage its ow n conflicts w ithout violence. In this the m edia play a crucial role. The O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media prom otes the independence of journalists and others w orking in the m edia, in particular by exposing cases of journalists arrested and sent to prison w ithout a fair trial.

The Representative also voices concern if the use of the Internet is restricted, as is the case in a num ber of participating States. While m ore and m ore inform ation is being distributed over the Internet regardless of national borders, at the sam e tim e new m ethods of censorship are being developed and im plem ented. The Representative on Freedom of the Media has draw n attention to this on several occasions, culm inating in the conference on Freedom of the M edia and the Internet held in Am sterdam in June 2003.

Given the fundam ental changes that European m edia have undergone over the past ten years, the im pact of m edia concentration on professional journalism is a source of serious concern. New m arkets in the post-com m unist countries and m edia m ergers in Western Europe have accelerated the trend tow ards m edia concentration all over the continent, in particular in the print m edia. Here again the O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media has expressed concern and provided guidance.

10

PREFACE

Th e presen t O SCE Represen tative on Freedom of th e M edia, Freim ut D uve, w ill com plete h is term of office at th e en d of 2003. O ver th e past six years, M r. D uve h as played an im portan t role as th e O SCE’s m edia w atch dog in a very distin ctive w ay. Wh erever th e position of in dividual journ alists or m edia organ ization s in th e region w as ch allen ged M r.

D uve w as tireless in h is efforts to im prove th eir situation . I w ould like to take th is opportun ity to com m en d M r. D uve for all h e h as don e durin g th ese years. He is an in spirin g exam ple for an y successor.

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer is M inister of Foreign Affairs of the N etherlands and Chairman-in-O ffice of the O SCE 2003

JAAP DE H O O P SCHEFFER

11

Freim ut Duve O ur Task: Freedo m and Jo urnalistic Respo nsibility - Independence fro m Go vernment Interference Introduction

Elected by 54 governm ents, I w as given the m andate of the O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media to look into the independence of m edia from governm ent influence. That w as a m ajor step by the participating States to actually agree in 1997 to appoint som ebody w hose job it is to look in a critical w ay at the role that these sam e governm ents played in relation to the m edia in their countries. No other regional organization of the UN or the UN itself had ever gone that far.

Appointed in Decem ber 1997, w e had good reasons to start the w ork and to face the great challenges in an enthusiastic m ood. In the 1990s Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia w ent through a brutal w ar, accom panied by racist and ethnic w ar propaganda that Europe rem em bered so w ell from the tim e the Nazis had set fire to our com m on house w ith racial propaganda and ethnic m ass killing. These conflicts had died dow n in 1997. Freedom of journalism , freedom of the m edia – m y portfolio for the next six years – show ed hopeful signs in m ost of the participating States.

Six years on, w ith several new conflicts behind us, w e have to question w hether m ore could have been done to prevent the establishm ent in som e of our less developed Mem ber States of an across-the-board structure of governm ent or big business control over all spheres of life, including m edia.

We could not prevent the cem enting of control of the m edia by different pow er groups. We have not been able to stop the oligarchs of today, often the party leaders of yesterday, FREIMUT D UVE

13

from taking hostile control of the m edia either at the behest of senior officials or on their ow n.

How ever, w e m ade the general public aw are of this challenge that new authoritarian form s of governm ent present to the independence of the m edia. We explained the problem s, how they developed and how they m ight be solved. If there is a w ill, w e clearly show ed that there w as definitely a w ay.

We w ent even further and show ed that control of the m edia by interest groups in the form er Soviet bloc only w orked to stifle aw areness of the m any inadequacies in econom ic developm ent w hen it w as coupled w ith control over the judiciary. We w ere clear in underlining that the tw o pillars of dem ocracy – free m edia and rule of law – w ere intertw ined.

O ne cannot really survive in this New World disorder w ithout the other one.

We tried to stop several of our participating States from sliding from partial dem ocracies into a state of affairs one can only describe as elected authoritarianism (m ost of these countries have elections, w hich are often not really free and fair, but a choice of candidates is usually available to the voter).

In line w ith the m andate, w e exercised an early w arning function. O ften w e failed in m aking countries listen. But from the very beginning I stressed that in addition to the basic value of freedom of expression, in m odern tim es critical journalists play a vital corrective function in m aking public the serious m istakes of those in pow er. These m istakes affect the country, the econom y and in particular the ecological future of the region. O ne of the reasons w hy m ore and m ore papers are being bought by big business is to stop journalists from w riting about the dangerous ecological failures of m ajor com panies in m any regions.

These countries and their m inisters of foreign affairs – m y counterparts (and bosses since I w as elected by unanim ous vote by these sam e m inisters) – w ere accom m odating and 14

INTRO DUCTIO N

understanding in their answ ers. But nothing changed. O n the contrary, very often w e saw a tightening of screw s: another new spaper harassed, another journalist detained.

In the end, w e had to find w ays to describe this situation, to analyse it and to offer possible solutions that m ight lead the country concerned out of this never-ending battle betw een civil dem ocracy and a sem i-corrupt system of governm ent and business. My O ffice has fixed its flashlight perm anently on corruption and how it affects the w ork of journalists, w ho should be the very agents to open citizens’ eyes to corruption.

O ne problem that w e cam e across in the post-Soviet w orld w as that of definition. We have m any participating States that can proudly state that they have a variety of m edia representing different political view points, that they have thousands of privately-ow ned new spapers and m agazines, hundreds of radio and television channels. And they are correct if slightly deceitful.

Very few of the em erging dem ocracies have an independent m edia. Many of these num erous private outlets that the O SCE partners like to point out ad nauseam are either ow ned by governm ent-controlled businesses or influenced by them through third com panies. That is w hy, for exam ple, very little is w ritten on corruption, on ecological disasters of the present and those loom ing in the future.

Why w ould a new spaper that at first glance looks “independent� start investigating industrial pollution w hen there is a high probability that one of its ow ners happens to also ow n the factory that is polluting half of the country? O r w hy w ould a television station air a report on bribe taking am ong senior officials w hen the com pany that ow ns it also happens to need a building perm it and w ants to speed up the procedure? This is an endless list, and those aw are of w hat I am referrin g to probably h ave th eir ow n , even m ore glarin g exam ples.

FREIMUT D UVE

15

Those w ho do venture into the dangerous territory of governm ent-business relations in a post-Soviet econom y, the few courageous journalists bent on investigating stories nobody else in the m edia w orld w ould touch, are often harassed, im prisoned, forced out of a job, sentenced (usually for libel), and end up in som e detention cell, shunned even by their form er colleagues. Their only salvation – an independent judicial investigation – is an option m ore related to science fiction rather than to the stark reality of post-com m unism privatization.

We have rarely com e across cases (although there are a notable few ) w hen the judiciary took the side of the journalist w ho w as in conflict w ith the authorities over som ething he or she w rote/film ed. This is especially true for the regions outside the capital w here the judges are at the m ercy of the local executive for m any things: housing, access to better schooling for their children, m edical care, etc.

This clim ate of subtle oppression, of psychological censorship has succeeded in turning m any reporters into bashful cynics w ho happily defend the ow ners of their m edia, often acting as press officers and not as society’s eye-openers.

Another w orrying tendency concerns the afterm ath of the 11 Septem ber attack and the fight against crim inal terror acts w hich is being w aged throughout the w orld. While prior to the terrible events of 2001, som e of our governm ents w hen confronted w ith cases of m edia harassm ent w ent on the defensive, today they use a different approach: they im m ediately refer to terror threats to national security.

The debate on w hat com es first – hum an rights or national security – has been going on for years, 11 Septem ber just brought it back on the front page. When levelling criticism at our Western dem ocracies I have alw ays pointed out the problem of creating a precedent. Yes, I have voiced concerns in developed countries regarding som e of the actions taken there – actions w hich m ay not have attacked m edia freedom 16

INTRO DUCTIO N

in general but w ere certainly rather questionable. Europe has itself w itnessed dram atic m om ents in the tw entieth century w hen journalist independence w as threatened, not only in Germ any and Italy in the thirties. We all have to be very careful to avoid any steps that m ight now w eaken this basic freedom . These new actions m ight not underm ine the fundam ental structure of a civil dem ocracy. How ever, they m ight provide a precedent that is then easily follow ed by countries w here dem ocracy does not have a long history. A developed dem ocracy w ill survive these hiccups but for a developing one they m ight be lethal.

The O SCE, as a fam ily of declared dem ocracies, has a responsibility to ALL its participating States, and these States have responsibilities tow ards each other. You cannot do som ething in one country in today’s instant communications day and age and expect it not to be noticed thousands of kilom etres aw ay. A piece of legislation adopted by a democratically elected parliam ent in one country m ay give very different ideas to a dem ocratically elected dictator. Especially w hen this piece of legislation strays into the area of civil liberties vs. national security. The tyranny of precedent w ill alw ays be w ith us.

In these six years, in this O ffice w e, w ho are dedicated to defending one of the m ost basic hum an rights, w ere often frustrated w ith a lack of positive new s. Yes, w e did get a substantial am ount of negative inform ation. Every day, actually, som ebody in the O SCE region w as arrested, harassed, beaten for doing his/her job: reporting all the new s. We intervened, w rote letters, raised these cases publicly, w ent to the countries, held m eetings, even raised our voices in a very undiplom atic fashion at people not used to such behaviour. This w as often w ithout any positive result. The journalist continued to “enjoy” his/her stay in a three-by-three room w ith no w indow s, the new spaper never reopened (or if it did, under “new m anagem ent”), the TV licence never m aterialized. A frustrating job to put it m ildly.

FREIMUT D UVE

17

So, w hat did w e do? Where did w e succeed, if anyw here?

Maybe the w ay forw ard is to close dow n this O ffice – too m uch hassle w ith little, if any, positive output?

We did relight the torch of glasnost w here it had fizzled out. I guess that aw areness is the one area w here w e can claim success w ithout any strings attached. In som e of our States, thanks to this O ffice, m edia w orkers and the general public are m ore aw are of the challenges of developing a free m edia even in som e of these new, dem ocratically elected authoritarian system s.

We did point an accusing finger at the m ost egregious violators of O SCE com m itm ents on freedom of expression. No governm ent w as allow ed to get aw ay w ith threatening this fundam ental civil liberty. Again this aw areness em pow ers the citizenry to defend its rights.

Where w e could w e helped to draft legislation that should ensure a free, diverse and fair m edia landscape (if not today then in the future, but the basis is already in place).

We did m any other things. Many good things, and yet the O SCE record on freedom of expression in 2003 is not a very positive one and here w e did not really succeed in im proving it.

18

INTRO DUCTIO N

I. Internet

Felipe Rodriquez and Karin Spaink Rights and Regulatio ns Hans J. Kleinsteuber The D igital Age

Felipe Rodriquez and Karin Spaink Rights and Regulatio ns

Ever since the Internet started to becom e a popular m edium , strong concerns have been voiced about a small amount of content that is distributed on the Internet. There has been extensive m edia coverage of the dissem ination of child pornography, hate speech, racial discrim ination, neo-Nazi propaganda, political speech and other types of content that some governments in som e countries find offensive.

Different nations have acted in different w ays in response to these issues. Som e have initiated governm ent-sanctioned censorship of content on the Internet, others have prom oted the im plem entation of industry self-regulation as a m ethod of enforcing local standards. With the exception of several nondem ocratic countries, none of the attem pts to ban illegal and harm ful content on the Internet has been successful.

The easiest type of content to ban from the Internet is child pornography. It is relatively easy to act against because child pornographic content is illegal in virtually every country in the w orld. Therefore, a certain level of international cooperation betw een law enforcem ent agencies to find and prosecute the individuals that distribute this type of content can be effectuated w ithout too m any hindrances. A num ber of successes in this area have been attained: law enforcem ent agencies in recent years have becom e m ore skilled at tracking dow n distributors and passing this inform ation to relevant agencies in other countries. As a result, large groups of child pornography distributors have been caught and prosecuted.

Most other types of content are m uch m ore difficult to act against on the Internet, the prim e reason being that there is no international agreem ent about the legality of the content FELIPE RO DRIQ UEZ

AND

KARIN SPAINK

23

under dispute. An example is neo-Nazi propaganda; most European nations w ould like to ban neo-Nazi propaganda from the Internet, but other nations protect this type of content under their freedom of expression legislation.

O nce content is (legally) published on the Internet in one country, it is freely available in all other countries connected to the Internet. Users can freely fetch all inform ation available, no m atter from w here it originates and under w hich law it w as legitim ately published. Their local law s m ight be at odds, but in general, trying to enforce local standards on participants in a global netw ork is futile. This concept in itself renders the notion of enforcing local legislation to ban hate speech and types of political speech rather m eaningless. If one accepts the axiom that nations are entitled to have their ow n cultural and political values and have the right to im plem ent these into national legislation, one m ust by necessity refrain from attem pting to enforce global standards of w hat is and w hat is not acceptable on the Internet. If not, one w ould basically be forcing other countries to drop their ow n values.

After all, content that is deem ed to be harm ful, dangerous or perverse in one nation, can be perfectly acceptable in another, and thus – because of the nature of the Internet – it w ill be freely accessible in both. In other w ords: governm ents have to com e to grips w ith the fact that such content cannot be rem oved from the Internet and that their citizens cannot be prevented from accessing internationally available m aterial, unless these sam e governm ents are w illing to eradicate all cultural and political differences betw een the various nations that together form the global fabric.

O ne im portant difference betw een printed and broadcast m edia on the one hand and digital m edia on the other m ay help governm ents to tolerate this – for them – often difficult notion of accepting national differences and the ensuing im possibility to enforce local standards. While printed and 24

RIGHTS AND REGULATIO NS

broadcast media are characterized by their one-to-many nature, and cannot allot tim e and space to each and any opinion or refutation thereof, the Internet has unlim ited space. Anybody w ho w ants to publish an opinion or counteract a certain (political) view point on the Net can do so, be it on their ow n w ebsite or on Usenet. People w ho publish on the Net are not dependent on editors to give them space or tim e. Thus, m any m ore voices are being heard on the Net and, w hile som e of them m ight be questionable, there is at the sam e tim e quite an abundance of people w ho w ill take great efforts to painstakingly refute and counter such opinions.

The interesting effect is that those w ho argue against opinions deemed politically undesirable or dangerous, depend on the presence of those opinions in order to document and present their own counter case. A beautiful example is Nizkor (Hebrew for “We w ill remember”, see <w w w.nizkor.org>), an elaborate w ebsite that refutes claims made by neo-Nazis in great detail.

Nizkor presents original historical records and events, lists and undermines various ploys to deny the Holocaust, and – through their presence on the Internet – tracks the movements and associations of neo-Nazis and their organizations.

Various attem pts have been m ade by European governm ents to censor content on the Internet by im plem enting technical solutions (such as filtering or blocking). None of these attem pts have been a com plete success, one reason being because content on the Internet is very easy to copy and can then be republished in a different location; this technique is called “m irroring”. Traditionally, content targeted by censorship is often m irrored on m any other places on the Internet, rendering such technical censorship ineffective.

How ever, the im plem entation of technical censorship on the Internet invariably causes collateral dam age, as the exam ple of the Germ an censorship of the Dutch Internet provider FELIPE RO DRIQ UEZ

AND

KARIN SPAINK

25

XS4ALL in 1996 proves. A custom er of this provider published a Germ an ultra left m agazine on his w ebsite that contained tw o articles w ith instructions on how to sabotage railw ay lines destined to be used for nuclear transports. While this m agazine (Radikal) is banned in Germ any, and possession of it is illegal in that country, the publication w as not illegal in the Netherlands. The Germ an authorities, the Bundesanwaltschaft, forced Germ an com m ercial and academ ic Internet providers to block the XS4ALL w ebsite to prevent Germ ans from accessing the publication. Germ an providers proceeded to block access to the entire XS4ALL dom ain. Tens of thousands of com pletely legal publications w ere also blocked as a consequence of this action, and thus becam e the collateral dam age of a very coarse censorship act. The end result for the Germ an Governm ent w as nil, as the Radikal publication w as copied to m any different w ebsites around the w orld, and is still available on the Internet today, seven years later. Indeed, the act of censorship caused proliferation of the banned content instead of its discontinuation.

Various governm ents have im plem ented content regulations to ban specific content from the Internet. The problem w ith these regulations is that national regulation has a local focus and lim itation; it can only affect content in the country of origin and has no effect on content outside that country.

Therefore, virtually all national Internet content regulation system s are ineffective and useless. They basically serve no other purpose than political w indow dressing: the internal ban m ight w ork, but the m aterial in question can still be accessed from locations outside the national jurisdiction as if nothing had happened.

A lot can be learned from the Australian Internet content censorship bill that w as passed in 1999. This censorship fram ew ork w as im plem ented in 2000 to protect m inors from offensive content. A study by the Australia Institute in 2003 26

RIGHTS AND REGULATIO NS

dem onstrated that the Australian censorship fram ew ork w as com pletely ineffective, and that m inors could – and did – access any type of content on the Internet.

Another w ay governm ents have tried to deal w ith content on the Internet is by prom oting the concept of industry selfregulation. In 1996, w hen governm ents becam e aw are of the nature of the Internet and called for action, the Internet industry stakeholders called for self-regulatory action as opposed to governm ent regulation.

The Internet has a long tradition of self-regulation. Various protocols and netw orks on the Internet are m anaged and coordinated by its users. Exam ples are the Usenet new sgroup hierarchy and the Internet Relay Chat netw orks, w hich have no central m anagem ent, but are kept in w orking order by volunteers w ithout a central hierarchy. The engineering of new protocols and the im plem entation of new technology on the Internet is also largely the result of the w ork of Internet users and experts w ho co-operate w ithout any central hierarchy or organization; instead, the m odus operandi is com m unity consensus, based on open discussion, public engagem ent, expert input and transparency.

The type of industry self-regulation on the Internet that has been prom oted by governm ents differs radically from the traditional Internet self-regulation. Industry self-regulation is usually co-ordinated by industry associations, there is no public participation, and the actions of industry self-regulation are usually not transparent to the public, nor is there a possibility to appeal against decisions. Hence, industry self-regulation is a m isnom er: Internet users are not regulating them selves, on the contrary, it is the industry im posing its regulations upon users. In practice, industry self-regulation is regulation by the industry of the Internet com m unity. Thus, a better term w ould be “industry regulation” om itting the w orld “self”.

FELIPE RO DRIQ UEZ

AND

KARIN SPAINK

27

Moreover, in m any instances the industry didn’t start this practice of self-regulation of its ow n accord: there w as a clear threat that if the industry didn’t im pose rules upon itself and on users soon, the governm ent w ould. Hoping to both prevent stricter (governm ent im posed) rules and to codify their ow n influence, the industry as a w hole opted for this so-called ‘self-regulation’, thereby – as m any critics have stated – accepting and furthering the process of the privatization of state censorship. The industry ends up being the governm ents’ handm aiden, w hile users are sim ultaneously deprived of their dem ocratic and judicial rights: there is no voting, no public participation or representation, no accountability, no redress and no transparency.

Leaving enforcem ent of Internet regulations to the industry is a fundam entally flaw ed concept, because the industry is driven m ainly by a profit m otive and not m otivated by the civil rights of Internet users. The profit m otive causes industry players to have risk-averse behaviour, w hich can infringe citizens’ rights of expression. In addition to industry self-regulation, the industry often uses the licence agreem ent w ith its custom ers to ban content or ban the custom er. When users are confronted by their providers they usually have now here to turn, and are faced w ith an asym m etric balance of pow er. If anything Internet citizens need stronger protection of their rights, to be protected from industry initiatives that are overly restrictive or obscure.

Due to the w idely varying nature of content on the Internet, it is natural that some people are concerned and call for government action against Internet content. But history and facts demonstrate that governments are incapable of enforcing their local standards on a global netw ork. Hence governments should not focus on additional attempts to censor content on the Internet, but should instead focus on empow ering the end-user.

The attitudes tow ards content on the Internet are highly subjective. Som e users m ay be offended by erotic content 28

RIGHTS AND REGULATIO NS

because m inors access the Internet, w hereas a young adult m ay be perfectly entitled to view that sam e content; hence censorship is not a solution. After all, censorship affects all users, not only m inors. The solution m ight be to em phasize to users that they can im plem ent their ow n filters to prevent the view ing of specific content according to their ow n standards instead of general, governm ent im posed standards. End-user em pow erm ent teaches the population about the Internet, and how users can becom e m ore aw are of content on the Internet and protect them selves against it.

An analogous situation has spontaneously developed in the area of com puter viruses. The distribution of com puter viruses is an illegal act in m ost countries, yet this has not prevented the proliferation of viruses in recent years. Citizens realize that governm ents cannot m ount an effective defence against viruses despite the fact that they do occasionally prosecute virus w riters. As a result people are forced to protect them selves by installing anti-virus softw are, w hich is w hat m ost people have ended up doing in recent years. Censoring content on the Internet by the governm ent is as hopeless an attem pt as preventing the proliferation of com puter viruses.

Another problem that is receiving a lot of attention is unsolicited com m ercial bulk e-m ail, usually dubbed â&#x20AC;&#x153;spam â&#x20AC;?. Different governm ents have announced that they are considering the im plem entation of regulations against spam ; the EU has already published a directive, to be im plem ented by national states before the end of 2003.

Regulating spam is a tricky proposition, because it is an international phenom enon. When one country creates regulations against spam , it does not affect the senders of spam in other countries. But a potential side effect of spam regulation could be that m andatory e-m ail filters are installed by providers w hich also filter legitim ate e-m ail. It is highly unlikely that national anti-spam regulations w ill prevent bulk e-m ail from being sent to its citizens. It m ay not be sent from FELIPE RO DRIQ UEZ

AND

KARIN SPAINK

29

that sam e country but from a safe haven abroad w here the sending of spam is not illegal.

Another im portant consideration is that spam filtering system s should by necessity be voluntary for the end-user, and m ay never be involuntarily forced upon the user, because no filter is foolproof. Filtering w ill alw ays result in the loss of som e legitim ate e-m ail m essages, and it is only the users w ho can decide w hat risks they w ould like to take in that area.

It m ight be better to fund public initiatives that develop anti-spam m easures and technologies, instead of im plem enting regulations. There is a variety of w ays in w hich end-users can protect them selves against spam . Governm ent regulation is not needed as a protective measure, nor does it w ork: national jurisdiction is at odds w ith the international character of the Internet. But w hat does w ork is enabling end-users to install softw are that w ill help them deal w ith the problem . Som e quite effective anti-spam filters are available on the Internet. Another developm ent is the rise of the concept of challenge response em ail, w here a recipient has to approve the sender in order to receive e-m ail from that address now and in the future.

The conclusion that m any advanced Internet users have draw n is that governm ent regulation of the Internet is an inherently negative developm ent: on the one hand it sim ply doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t w ork and threatens cultural differences, w hile on the other hand it causes collateral dam age and ham pers the proper developm ent of Internet technologies. Industry self-regulation is even w orse than government regulation: it suffers from obscure m ethodology w ithout offering the possibility of public scrutiny.

Apart from that, it is unheard of to give any industry the pow er to enforce regulation, and thus censorship, upon citizens.

30

RIGHTS AND REGULATIO NS

Hans J. Kleinsteuber The D igital Age: New Challenges after Three Hundred Years o f Mass Media Experience

When Freimut Duve made his introductory statement to this conference, he defined himself as a Stone Age man in terms of the Internet. If you look at me, I am perhaps from the Copper Age. You should take this into consideration w hen I emphasize the point that our attitudes and behaviour in terms of media and freedom of information are very much still shaped by roughly three hundred years of mass media experiences w ith patterns that are totally different from w hat the digital age offers.

What I w ould like to em phasize is the follow ing. The m ajority of m edia consum ers are used to technologies that are one-dim ensional, m ass oriented, passive and based on a m edia m onologue. The Internet offers totally new possibilities. Com m unication can be bidirectional, it can be individual or it can be peer-to-peer, it can be active or interactive and it allow s dialogues. But the question is, How is this really handled in a real w orld w here, for exam ple, global m edia industries have been established or w here governm ents have an interest in controlling political com m unication? What w e can now observe is that features of the entertainm ent or fun industry are m oving into the Internet; that things like entertainm ent in television, or m arketing and advertising are becom ing increasingly im portant; and that the potential of the Internet to create new spheres of inform ation, to create public spheres w here citizens can com m unicate w ith each other is not really being used.

H ANS J. KLEINSTEUBER

31

So m y question is: How does the Internet contribute to the developm ent of the m edia landscape? If you look at the technologies of m edia, I think the m ost im portant application today is streaming technology, representing the digital convergence of old and new m edia that offers new s portals including text, anim ated graphics, radio, television and even interactive features like instant referendum or sending back a letter to the editor or journalist. But this is just the potential of this technology.

Before w e go into that in depth, let’s quickly see how m edia developed before the age of digitalization.

Here in Amsterdam is the place w here the European institution – and there w asn’t anything like this outside of Europe – of freedom of information started. Freedom of the press, freedom of the media began here even before it came to London and certainly much earlier than in other places in Europe. The reaction of the State at that time to this bourgeois pow er of creating public spheres w as, of course, open censorship and this tradition of censorship still continues in non-democratic States. In a second stage of development open censorship has more or less vanished, due to the relationship betw een State and media in the broadcasting age. Again, w e established a European tradition, the tradition of public service broadcasting, w hich is unique to our continent. But then another model, the commercial broadcasting model, w as developed in the United States in the 1920s and internationalized in the 1980s. It moved over to Europe and if w e talk about regulation, and this w ill be a central theme of the conference, w e should keep in mind that regulation is an American experience. It is even mentioned in the American Constitution and it reflects the adoption of American models of organizing broadcasting media. How ever, if w e transfer it into a new age of the Internet, w e w ill see that it does not w ork because it reflects experiences of a more or less bygone age.

Let us now transfer our attention to the Internet. I think that it has been very clearly presented that any form of censor32

T HE D IGITAL AGE: N EW C HALLENGES

ship or filtering does not w ork w ell in this field. The question is how to regulate problem s of the Internet in the future – child pornography for exam ple. I think the only m odel that w e can offer, and I say this as a political scientist, is w hat w e call global governance, w hich is a m odel that w as developed around the United Nations conferences on environm ent, w om en, or health. There w ill be another UN conference in 2005 in Tunis on the Inform ation Society. Global governance just m eans that the old state action does not w ork any m ore. Instead, w e need som e form of round table w here governm ent representatives, including the EU of course, people from industry and – very im portant – NGO s, representatives of an em erging w orld civil society, sit together, see w here they have common interests and then follow a minimum strategy w here they can then introduce m easures jointly that m ight help in the w orst fields w here w e need som e global regulation. These global governance processes may not be democratic, even though I think that they m ay w ell be m ore legitim ate than traditional processes in international policies. Yet, again, the Internet offers possibilities to organize elections as the exam ple of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Nam es and Num bers (ICANN) show s. There w e have role m odels about how to dem ocratize these governance processes in the future and I think this is very necessary.

If I look at the global processes around the Internet at the current tim e, I see a kind of w orld struggle betw een those w ho support open and non-discrim inatory architectures of the Internet and others w ho are trying to kind of privatize the Net – the softw are, the hardw are, w hatever – for their personal and usually econom ic interests. It seem s very clear that the industries that now w ant to control the Internet are m oving into the hardw are field. They are trying to create chips that they control w hich m ight lead to a new form of censorship. This w ould not be state but industry censorship. There I see a clear conflict betw een the United States and Europe, for exam ple in H ANS J. KLEINSTEUBER

33

the field of softw are: Microsoft versus Linux, and certainly w e should do everything to keep the developm ent open.

In the United States, Microsoft, the w orld’s largest softw are producer, started an alliance w ith AO L a few w eeks ago.

It w ould seem to m e that they are jointly trying to introduce a system of Internet control that uses w hatever technology is suitable. I think it w ill be predom inantly hardw are technology, trusted com puting etc., w hich m ight in fact m ean censorship. We should be very aw are of this.

The US Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the European reactions to it – the Copyright Directive is currently under consideration in the European Parliam ent – w ere also m entioned. Again, I am very concerned about this process. In the United States, copyright law is already used to lim it the free use of Internet m aterial. Am azon.com , for exam ple, successfully stopped all com petitors from using a one-stop shopping softw are so that Am azon can, like Microsoft, create a de facto m onopoly in a certain field. O r another exam ple: recently an Am erican law w as passed that extends copyright protection for another tw enty years. The law is called the Disney Law because it w as lobbied for by the Disney Com pany in order to delay Mickey Mouse’s entry into the public dom ain.

Let m e finish w ith a few w ords on the opportunities that the Internet provides for journalism . O f course, online journalism is a new feature. You can read new spapers all over the w orld. Journalists have new sources for research and investigation, w hich is quite fascinating. We have new types of new s portals, and m uch m ore. O n the other hand, especially in the field of journalism , w e also discussed the death of traditional m edia reporting sim ply because the Internet allow s direct access to inform ation for anybody, so you m ay bypass the journalist or the professional reporter, and the job m ay die out. There are even exam ples like Google New s, w hich I w ould urge you to look at. Google now has a new s portal and 34

T HE D IGITAL AGE: N EW C HALLENGES

it w orks w ithout a single journalist. They have their m achines continuously m onitoring all the English-language new s portals of the w orld – and there are several thousands of these.

Then they use their statistical param eters and the new s features that are m ost often m entioned on those hom e pages are also the top stories in Google New s. It is a parasite system , but it is still very interesting to see.

Still, w ith all these problem s, I think that journalists becom e m ore im portant because of the inform ation overflow and the unreliability of the Internet, and serve to protect against rum ours and fakes. There w ill certainly be an increasing dem and for navigation and selection and for this you need a new brand of professional m edia producer that, of course, requires different education from the old brand. Also the Internet offers an incredible variety of alternative sources of inform ation – inform ation that w as previously issued in leaflets, radio stations, or new s bulletins. During the Iraq War the m ainstream m edia in the United States m ore or less sang the song of patriotism w ith very few exceptions. But if you w ent on Google and just w rote ‘Iraq War’ you w ould have been linked to dozens of hom e pages that offered the other stories, the non-reported facts or the num ber of dead bodies, or you w ould even have been linked to people in Iraq w ho w ere w riting their w ar logs and giving their personal im pression of w hat w as happening during this w ar. The chance to have a counter public sphere, therefore, very m uch increases w ith the Internet, as does the opportunity for citizens, non-professionals, to becom e new sm akers – at least in extrem e situations.

O ne last element that I w ould like to emphasize, w hich has to do w ith my activities w ith Deutsche Welle, is that I think that the technical side of the Internet and the quality of offering dialogues should also be transferred into a journalism of dialogue.

In fact, the Internet offers incredible chances to connect cultures that are different in history, languages and experiences. It can H ANS J. KLEINSTEUBER

35

even connect people in countries at w ar in a new w ay. I very m uch propose portals or w ebsites that offer inform ation from other parts of the w orld. Take for exam ple the Arab w orld. We have lots of English-language inform ation that has been discontinuously produced in the Arab w orld â&#x20AC;&#x201C; radio, television program m es, new spapers that all offer new s in English. If this w ere to be selected, sorted out, com m ented on and presented to us w e w ould gain a m uch better im age of the Arab w orld.

The Internet also increasingly offers translating m achines. Arab friends have told m e that their language is too beautiful ever to be translated by a m achine. But at least it is already possible to obtain raw translations from other cultures w here w e have no language access. Google offers this and I think that in a few years you should be able to read Arabic, or even Chinese or Japanese, new spapers on your com puter. There are prospects for building bridges betw een cultures w hich deserve serious consideration. Again, here w e have to develop new m odels so that the professional m edia producers, the journalists, are really able to handle these potentials of the Internet. Then w e w ill have no problem in the process of the transfer of old m edia into new m edia and w e w ill have the chance to take people w ho are, in their vast m ajority, still socialized in their old m edia, into the area of new m edia w here all the qualities of the digitalized age can be truly fulfilled.

This article is adapted from a transcript of M r. Kleinsteuberâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s speech held at the Conference on Freedom of the Media and the Internet in Amsterdam, 13 and 14 June 2003 organized by the O SCE Representative on Freedom of the M edia.

36

T HE D IGITAL AGE: N EW C HALLENGES

II. View s and Co mmentaries

Mass Media in Central Asia Central Asian Jo urnalists Speak abo ut Media Freedo m and Co rruptio n Jacqueline Godany The War in Iraq and its Impact o n Jo urnalists and Jo urnalism Freim ut Duve Freedo m and Respo nsibility Media in Multilingual So cieties Milo Dor Co nference Address: Media in Multilingual So cieties Johannes von Dohnanyi The Impact o f Media Co ncentratio n o n Pro fessio nal Jo urnalism Freim ut Duve The Spiegel Affair Achim Koch Mo bile Culture Co ntainer Freim ut Duve In D efence o f o ur Future?

Besnik, age 17, Mitrovica Gro w ing O ld Yo ung Sevji, age 16, Bitola As If No thing Had Ever Happened

Mass Media in Central Asia: Central Asian Jo urnalists Speak Abo ut Media Freedo m and Co rruptio n 1

“… Each of us can give plenty of exam ples of w hen society itself facilitates corruption in all spheres of our life. Against a background of political infantilism and legal illiteracy of m ost of the country’s people, bribe-giving and -taking is considered the norm .

This constitutes the greatest priority of our w ork. We should provide our citizens w ith full and reliable inform ation and offer them the opportunity to learn various (including opposing) view points on different issues of public life. Journalists should give m ore attention to the draft law s passed by O liy Majlis (Parliam ent) or by the governm ent, and not sim ply say ‘w e approve’ but analyse and evaluate the prospects for the future.” “… Uzbek journalists should display m ore solidarity and support for each other. It’s high tim e for us to unite and to address together the problem s that still exist.

I w ould like us, the journalists, to keep in m ind that the m edia are a strong pow er that can bring changes to this w orld.”

Lyubov Bagdalova, freelance journalist, Uzbekistan

“I w ould like to begin m y statem ent by quoting a good friend and a w ell-know n Kazakh politologist Nurbulat Masanov, w ho finds that corruption in Kazakhstan is ‘the foundation of the state and political system ’.”

1 The follow ing quotations are from the presentations at the Fourth Central Asian Media Conference Freedom of the M edia and Corruption held in Tashkent on 26-27 Septem ber 2002.

M ASS M EDIA IN C ENTRAL ASIA

41

“… They have their ow n interests, w hich are quite m aterial. In principle, nothing can function in Kazakhstan at present w ithout the involvem ent of the personal interests of public officers; corruption has becom e the driving force of the entire state m achinery.” “… Most m anipulated periodicals m erely appear to fight corruption. Moreover, such press provides inform ative support: All of its critical analysis as w ell as its praise of governm ental efforts in the fight against corruption create an illusion that the authorities them selves are not involved, that the corruption exists by itself, and that governm ental authorities even help in the fight against corruption.”

Sergei Duvanov, Human Rights in Kazakhstan and the World, published by Kazakhstani International Bureau for Hum an Rights and Rule of Law, Kazakhstan

“Considering the grow ing corruption am ong governm ental em ployees and the role of the m edia in inform ing the public about corruption cases, our conclusion w ill be far from com forting.

Unlike their colleagues in neighbouring countries or in the rest of the w orld, Uzbek journalists practically do not touch on the problem of corruption in their country, alm ost as if it does not exist at all. Extrem ely occasionally, the w ord ‘corruption’ can be found in the Uzbek new spapers; it is usually substituted by the w ord ‘bribery’, w hich has less scope.” “… Uzbekistan today has no active public opinion that could counteract the dictatorship of governm ental em ployees.

There are alm ost no editors w illing to risk their positions for the victory of justice or in order to tell the truth or at least part of the truth to the people. There are alm ost no journalists w ho w ould dare to throw publicly a shade of doubt on the actions of the governm ental authorities.”

Sergei Ezhkov, Pravda Vostoka new spaper, Uzbekistan

42

JO URNALISTS O N M EDIA FREEDO M

AND

C O RRUPTIO N

“The m ain reason for having no ‘teeth’ is a fear am ong journalists for their safety. […] But there is also another reason – the unavailability of real incentives to w rite such kinds of articles.

Tajik journalists do not earn high royalties. The editors w ho should be the initiators of such investigations are often against them , and there are no pow erful financial groups that could order such articles in Tajikistan. For instance, journalists in the West can be aw arded a grant from a foundation in order to conduct an investigation. If a person has a living w age they can w ork for a sufficiently long period w ithout having to w orry about their daily bread. In Tajikistan, as w ell as preparing a serious and com prehensive investigation, a journalist should also be ‘producing lines’ to m ake just enough m oney to live on.” “… Still there are not m any critical m aterials even of this kind. Essentially, it cannot be called fully fledged investigative journalism because m ost of it does not m eet the com m on criteria of reliability, clarity of narration and – m ost im portantly – com prehensive coverage of the problem .

The shortcom ings can be attributed, on the one hand, to the low professional level of the journalists, their inability to clearly w rite dow n their ideas on paper. The m eaning of their content can get confused or even distorted. In general, m uch depends on the professionalism of the journalists.

O n the other hand, another serious draw back is insignificant content, superficial conclusions or no conclusions at all. A low professional level of the authors may explain it too. Another major reason can be fear among the journalists to speak the entire truth, to make comparisons or to draw conclusions.”

Marat Mam adshoev, Asia-Plus new spaper, Tajikistan

“Naturally, the press w as able to see everything, and it w as able to hear and know everything, but it follow ed the principles of the three eastern m onkeys – see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Moreover, its m outh w as sealed by censorship.

M ASS M EDIA IN C ENTRAL ASIA

43

How could it be possible to w rite about m isappropriation, abuse, persecutions and suppression by the authorities, w hen in just a m om ent one could find oneself squashed by the state m achinery? […] That’s w hy w e consum e from the print m edia and TV such inform ation that has been painfully fam iliar to us since the old Soviet tim es, nam ely reports about glorious victories on econom ic battlefields, the social protection of the people, the revival of m edieval traditions and outlooks, diplom atic successes, an enhanced status of Uzbekistan in the w orld, the national ideology as the m ost acceptable and proper one.

There is no m ention of the real problem s. We did not know w hat w e w ere because w e could not see our im age in a real m irror, or w e w ere looking at our reflection through a distorted looking-glass.” “… Thanks be to God that censorship as an institution no longer exists in Uzbekistan. But there is self-censorship w hich is essentially w orse than censorship in that it kills the w ill for freedom in people. Maybe w e have spent too m uch tim e in a cage and w hen ‘all of a sudden’ w e are let free w e do not w ant to abandon this ‘w arm and w ell-adjusted’ little w orld. We have been tam ed, w e are scared of losing the attention of those w ho are higher up, and it’s difficult for us to becom e independent. There is no doubt that such a slave m entality should be squeezed out, drop by drop, because it’s free people thinking freely w ho build dem ocracy. A herd of slaves does not represent a civil society. While the process of ‘squeezing out’ is going on, corruption can be calm and continue to perform its deeds. But there w ill be an end to it.”

Alisher Toksanov, Tzentralnaya Azia new spaper, Uzbekistan

44

JO URNALISTS O N M EDIA FREEDO M

AND

C O RRUPTIO N

Jacqueline Godany The War in Iraq and its Impact o n Jo urnalists and Jo urnalism

Introduction. The w ar in Iraq (19 March – 1 May 2003) w as one of the m ost dangerous w ars for journalists in m edia history. In May 2003 the Com m ittee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) nam ed Iraq as num ber one on its list of the w orld’s w orst places to be a journalist, as nine journalists w ere killed in the first three w eeks of the w ar. At least 15 journalists died in this conflict; tw o are still m issing.

This seem s to be the m ost covered and m ost televised w ar in history. An estim ated 3,000 journalists covered the conflict (including m ore than 800 that w ere em bedded w ith the coalition forces), but conversely it also seem s to be the w ar w ith the m ost claim s and protests about violation of press freedom , and threats to freedom of expression. The m edia w ere not m anipulated, but reporting w as lim ited, m anaged, m onitored and restricted.

Journalists w ere beaten, harassed, jailed and censored says the International Press Institute in its latest report Caught in the Crossfire: The Iraq War and the M edia w hich w as published in May 2003 <http://w w w.freem edia.at/IraqReport2003.htm >.

According to the British new spaper The Guardian, veteran w ar reporters and experts claim ed that the w ar in Iraq w as the w orst ever for journalists and could m ean the end of “independent w itnessing of w ar”.

Form er BBC w ar correspondent Martin Bell for exam ple said: “I have a feeling that independent journalists have becom e a target because the m anagem ent of the inform ation w ar has becom e a higher priority than ever.”

JACQ UELINE G O DANY

45

Under the Geneva Conventions (Articles 50 and 79), journalists and other m edia w orkers – including those of com batant nations – should be treated as civilians. This should clearly outlaw the treatm ent of the m edia as m ilitary targets. But m edia organizations have been told from the start that unem bedded journalists w ould not be protected in the so-called “O peration Iraqi Freedom ”.

The Pentagon’s em bedding program m e caused great controversy. O nly about 20 per cent w ere from non-US m edia.

Under the Pentagon’s detailed guidelines em bedded correspondents are forbidden to report any inform ation that w ould underm ine or com prom ise the US offensive, including reports of m ilitary and civilian casualties.

During the first Gulf War, journalists organized FTP (“fuck the pool”) excursions across the border into Iraq, disguised as soldiers, as the allied forces tried to keep control over the m edia w ith selected pools for selected places.

The Guardian called em bedding a “charm ingly horticultural m etaphor for the US m ilitary’s new approach to handling journalists.”

A View on the Iraq Media Situation Before the War and Now. Press freedom in Iraq in the last 35 years has been non-existent. From 1968, w hen Saddam Hussein cam e to pow er, to the 1990s there w ere tw o daily new spapers, tw o radio stations and tw o TV channels, the latter operating only in the evening.

Saddam Hussein’s son Uday had authority to control all press and m edia outlets in Iraq from 1993 onw ards.

His m edia em pire included the Babil (or Babel), a daily political new spaper, the daily Al-Ba’th al-Riyaldi, the w eeklies Al-Rafidayn, Al-Z awra, N abd al-Shabab and Sawt al-Talabah, the Al-Shabab TV station, the popular radio station Voice of Iraq FM and the TV station Youth TV. No w ord of criticism w as tolerated, and everyone w ho criticized Saddam , his m inisters, 46

T HE W AR IN IRAQ

his officials or anything they did, risked prison and torture or execution. The Journalists’ Union w as also headed by Uday.

The country’s only Internet service provider w as the regim e-controlled Uruklink. Agents of the Baath Party or the secret police controlled Internet cafés, checking for unauthorized access to forbidden sites like private e-m ail services. The reception of satellite broadcasts w as forbidden. Helicopter patrols tried to track dow n hidden dishes.

Since the end of the Saddam regim e about 150 new new spapers clutter the new s-stands. Many of them are sponsored by political parties to spread their ideas and program m es. Som e m anage to publish every day, som e are w eeklies, and som e appear irregularly. You can now find tabloids, religious papers, and m agazines for w om en and about sport, the econom y and culture. There are countless shops selling satellite dishes for about 150 dollars.

The US-British Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), under the adm inistration of Paul Brem er, is now draw ing up rules to control the new Iraqi press. With order No. 7 from June 2003 there is a nine point list of “Prohibited Activities” including incitem ent to racial, ethnic or religious hatred, prom oting civil disorder, rioting or dam age to property, advocating support for th e ban n ed pre-w ar Baath party, an d publish in g m aterial that “is patently false and is calculated to provoke opposition to the CPA or underm ine legitim ate processes tow ards self-governm ent”.

All Iraqi m edia m ust now be registered. Licences w ill be revoked and equipm ent confiscated from m edia sources that break the rules. Individual offenders “m ay be detained, arrested, prosecuted and, if convicted, sentenced by relevant authorities to up to one year in prison and a 1,000 dollar fine”.

O fficials say the order is intended to stop hate speech.

The order has only been applied tw ice: to close a radio station and a new spaper. Although a lot of Iraqi journalists and organizations com plain about this code of conduct, there JACQ UELINE G O DANY

47

are other voices calling the current clim ate “a m ess” that needs to be organized.

The situation can be com pared to Germ any and Austria after World War II. The occupying pow ers controlled and operated the m edia in the first m onths. Later m ilitary authorities started to issue m edia licences to Germ ans subject to various restrictions: they w ere not allow ed to prom ote National Socialism or the politics of the Germ an em pire, to try to separate the Allies or to denigrate them , to criticize officials or the w ork of the m ilitary governm ent.

In the beginning the Germ ans reacted to the first Am erican inform ation service by calling it Am erican propaganda that replaced Nazi propaganda. But later the new m edia w ere influenced by English and Am erican m odels and a new journalistic tradition w as founded.

Iraq needs initial m edia regulation, and standards should be established to avoid hate speech and political propaganda.

But journalistic help from experienced journalists from developed dem ocracies is also needed.

Casualties among Journalists 1) Paul Moran: 22 March, northern Iraq.

The freelance cam eram an on assignm ent for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) w as killed by a suicide car bomb.

ABC correspondent Eric Cam pbell, w ho accom panied Paul Moran, w as w ounded in the attack.

Cam pbell told ABC radio that Moran w as film ing som e final shots for a story 50 m etres aw ay w hen a taxi sped up beside him and exploded. Islam ic m ilitant group Ansar-alIslam is being blam ed for the attack w hich injured nine others.

2) Terry Lloyd: 22 March, southern Iraq, Basra.

The journalist from Britain’s Independent Television N ews (ITN) w as killed w hen com ing under fire by the Allied forces w hen 48

T HE W AR IN IRAQ

he w as on his w ay to Basra. French cam eram an Fred Nérac and Lebanese translator Hussein O thm an, travelling w ith Lloyd, are still m issing.

Their cars, light-coloured Pajero off-road vans, w ere clearly m arked w ith large signs as TV vehicles.

The fourth m em ber of the non-em bedded team , cam eram an Daniel Dem oustier, w ho w as injured in the incident, indicated that US tanks opened fire on the ITN team after it cam e into contact w ith a group of Iraqi soldiers w ho appeared to be seeking to surrender.

O n 3 April, during a NATO press conference in Brussels, Fabienne Nérac urged US Secretary of State Colin Pow ell to provide more information on her missing husband Fred Nérac.

Pow ell personally promised to assist her. O n 15 April, Fabienne Nérac had a meeting w ith Ministry of Defence officials in London in a bid to persuade them to help her. She made an emotional appeal to the British Government to help find her husband. She had already had a 45-minute audience w ith French President, Jacques Chirac, and said she could not understand w hy the British and Americans w ere so reluctant to get involved.

Reporters sans frontières, the Com m ittee to Protect Journalists and the International Press Institute are also engaged in this case.

O n 19 May, som e 30 journalists covering a m eeting of European foreign and defence m inisters in Brussels put their cam eras and m icrophones on the ground and refused to cover the m inisters’ arrival in a protest against the failure of the British authorities to help investigate the disappearance of the tw o ITN journalists. Fabienne Nérac took part in the protest, handing the m inisters copies of a letter signed by her and Reporters sans frontières calling for urgent action in the case.

The British Defence Minister Geoff Hoon refused to take the copy of the letter w hich Fabienne Nérac held out to him . But the French Defence Minister Michèle Alliot-Marie took her in JACQ UELINE G O DANY

49

her arms and promised to raise the matter w ith Hoon. As Greece had the EU presidency, the meeting w as opened by the Greek Foreign Minister George Papandreou, w ho read out the letter.

According to the International Herald Tribune (3 June), Iraqis have given accounts of the tw o m en being taken alive to the Baath Party headquarters in Az Zubair. The British m ilitary found the tw o m en’s press passes in the tow n, and the television netw ork reported finding one of the Pajeros there.

The netw ork has collected DNA sam ples from 18 unidentified corpses in the tow n’s hospital to determ ine w hether the m issing m en m ight be am ong them .

3) Gaby Rado: 30 March, northern Iraq, Sulaym aniyah.

The Channel 4 foreign affairs correspondent w as found dead in the car park in front of the Abu Sanaa hotel in Sulaym aniyah. It is believed that he fell from the roof of the hotel, and that there is no connection w ith m ilitary action.

4) Kaveh Golestan: 2 April, northern Iraq, Kifri.

The Iranian freelance cam eram an on assignm ent for the BBC w as killed w hen he stepped on a landm ine as he exited his car near the tow n of Kifri. He w as travelling as part of a four-person BBC crew that included Jim Muir, the BBC Tehran correspondent, producer Stuart Hughes and a translator. Muir and the translator w ere unhurt and suffered only light injuries.

Hughes’s foot w as injured and later treated by US m ilitary m edics in Sulaym aniyah.

As a result of his injuries, Stuart Hughes had his foot am putated. He has w ritten m ovingly about the am putation in his daily w eblog <http://stuarthughes.blogspot.com > and he continues w riting about his life and his com m itm ent to the fight against landm ines.

5) Michael Kelly: 4 April, Baghdad Airport.

The editor-at-large of the Atlantic M onthly and colum nist w ith the Washington Post w as killed in an accident involving their 50

T HE W AR IN IRAQ

Hum m vee m ilitary jeep w hile travelling w ith the Arm y’s Third Infantry Division. Kelly w as the first em bedded journalist to die in the w ar.

6) Kam aran Abdurazaq Muham ed: 6 April, Mosul.

The Kurdish translator w orking for the BBC w as killed in a “friendly fire” incident w hen a US jet bom bed a convoy of Am erican special forces and Kurdish fighters not far from the tow n of Mosul.

BBC correspondent John Sim pson and BBC producer Tom Giles w ere injured. According to press reports, 18 people w ere killed in the incident, including m em bers of the US special forces.

7) David Bloom : 6 April, Baghdad.

The em bedded NBC correspondent, travelling w ith the US Third Arm y Infantry Division, died after suffering a blood clot (pulm onary em bolism ).

8) Christian Liebig: 7 April, Baghdad; 9) Julio Anguita Parrado: 7 April, Baghdad.

Tw o reporters - Christian Liebig, of the Germ an w eekly m agazine Focus, and Julio Anguita Parrado, of the Spanish new spaper El M undo, w ere killed in an Iraqi m issile strike. They w ere w ith the US Second Brigade of the Third Infantry Division in the southern outskirts of Baghdad. Tw o US soldiers w ere also killed in the attack.

The m agazine Focus reported that the tw o journalists had m ade the tragic decision to stay at the headquarters cam p that day, as they felt it w ould be too dangerous to go w ith the troops entering Baghdad and the palaces of Saddam Hussein.

10) Tarek Ayoub: 8 April, Baghdad The producer and correspondent for Al-Jazeera television w as killed in a US air raid on Baghdad as a bom b hit the TV station’s office. A second Al-Jazeera correspondent w as slightly w ounded in the attack. Abu-Dhabi TV w as also hit.

Al-Jazeera accused the United States of deliberately bom bing JACQ UELINE G O DANY

51

its offices to silence a pow erful voice in the Arab w orld. The channel’s offices in Kabul w ere also hit during the 2001 US-led w ar in Afghanistan.

According to The Guardian, a senior BBC journalist, w ho preferred not to be nam ed, said he w as alarm ed that the Pentagon did not seem to pay heed to information given by Al-Jazeera and every other TV organization based in the capital. The journalist stated: “I know Al-Jazeera gave the Pentagon all their GPS (global positioning system ) co-ordinates. It w as in a different part of tow n to the Palestine Hotel and m y sources at Al-Jazeera are saying the attitude of the Pentagon seem ed to be ‘m aybe w e’ll take your details’.”

Reporters sans frontières (RSF) expressed outrage at the bom bing and condem ned the attack in a letter to General Tom m y Franks, com m ander of US m ilitary operations in Iraq.

RSF also called on Franks to m ake a serious and thorough investigation of w ho w as responsible for the attack and w hy it w as carried out.

11) Taras Protsyuk: 8 April, Baghdad, Palestine Hotel; 12) Jose Couso: 8 April, Baghdad, Palestine Hotel.

Reuters cameram an Taras Protsyuk, a Ukrainian based in Warsaw, died after a US Abram s tank opened fire at the 14th and 15th floor of the Palestine Hotel – the base for m ost of the Western m edia. Jose Couso, cam eram an for Telecinco (Spain) w as badly w ounded in the attack and later died in hospital.

They had their cameras on their balcony and w ere w atching the streets. Three members of the Reuters team w ere also w ounded.

In its first reaction, US Central Com m and stated that troops had com e under fire from the lobby, but after a journalist questioned w hy the tank shot at the upper floors, it issued a revised statem ent saying there had been “significant enem y fire”. It m ade the sam e claim about the Al-Jazeera incident.

Reporters at the hotel said they had seen no sign of firing from the Palestine Hotel at US troops.

52

T HE W AR IN IRAQ

The next day the m edia all over the w orld w ere in a fury.

According to Reuters, the respected Mexican daily El Universal printed on its front page: “The US is now m urdering journalists”. All relevant organizations called for an urgent independent investigation.

In Spain betw een 30 and 40 journalists piled cam eras, tape recorders and notepads at the front of a room w here Spanish Prim e Minister Jose Maria Aznar w as m eeting his party’s law m akers. Aznar w as also snubbed w hen he arrived at the low er cham ber of parliam ent for the w eekly questionand-answ er session. A dozen photographers and cam eram en turned their back and held up blow n-up photos of Couso instead of taking pictures. Reporters in Madrid also w alked out of a new s conference w ith British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw after only one question.

In an interview w ith France’s N ouvel O bservateur, Captain Philip Wolford, com m ander of A Com pany, Fourth Battalion of the Third Infantry Division, later confirm ed that one of his tanks had fired at the hotel, but said he had not been told that the hotel w as hom e to the international press. His m an had seen a glint of light reflected off w hat they thought w ere binoculars on one of the hotel’s balconies.

13) Iraqi interpreter (nam e as yet unknow n): 12 April, Baghdad.

An Iraqi interpreter for The Sun (Malaysia), N ew Straits Times, and M alaysian State Television, w as killed w hen gunm en am bushed and kidnapped three Malaysian journalists in Baghdad. The journalists w ere released the sam e day.

14) Mario Podesta: 14 April, Baghdad; 15) Veronica Cabrera: 14 April, Baghdad.

Argentine America TV correspondent Mario Podesta w as killed in a car accident near Ram adi, 60 m iles outside Baghdad. His colleague, cam eraw om an Veronica Cabrera, w as seriously injured and died the follow ing day. A tyre explosion caused JACQ UELINE G O DANY

53

the accident. The Com m ittee to Protect Journalists said it w as investigating the reports of gunfire.

Before the w ar started, Patrick Bourrat, the French correspondent for the TF-1 television station, died in a hospital in Kuw ait. O n 21 December he w as badly injured after being run over by a tank w hile covering US military exercises in the desert.

He tried to push his cameraman out of the w ay of the tank.

Impact of the War on the World’s Media

54

•

21 March: Journalists report being assaulted by police w hile covering anti-w ar dem onstrations in the Spanish capital Madrid.

•

26 March: The TV channel Al-Jazeera’s w ebsite in Arabic and its new English site w ere both inaccessible during m ost of the day. Explanations ranged from server crashes due to unusually high w eb traffic, to hacker activities, and rum ours about an attack by the US Governm ent.

•

29 March: Four m em bers of the Al-Jazeera crew in Basra, the only journalists inside the city at that tim e, cam e under gunfire from British tanks as they w ere film ing distribution of food by Iraqi governm ent officials. O ne of the station’s cam eram en, Akil Abdel Reda, w ent m issing and w as later found to have been held for 12 hours by the US m ilitary.

•

31 March: Reporter Peter Arnett w as fired by NBC after he gave an interview to Iraqi television. Arnett covered the first Gulf War for CNN from Baghdad.

•

1 April: Peter Arnett w as hired by the Daily M irror. “Fired

by Am erica for telling the truth. Hired by the Daily M irror to carry on telling it”, declared the paper.

•

3 April: Los Angeles Times photographer Brian Walski w as fired after it turned out that he altered a cover photo, show ing a British Soldier w ith refugees. Using com puter softw are he m erged tw o different pictures into one as he w anted to

T HE W AR IN IRAQ

have a “better picture”. This is unacceptable in serious photojournalism and the LA Times issued an editorial apology.

•

3 April: RSF accused the Iraqi authorities of show ing contempt for foreign journalists, imprisoning and expelling some, and preventing the rest from w orking w ith even a minimal level of freedom. In a letter to the Iraqi interests section in Paris, RSF Secretary-General Robert Ménard said the Iraqi authorities’ attitude tow ard foreign journalists w ho w ere trying to cover the w ar from Baghdad and other cities in Iraq w as “scandalous, contemptuous and hostile”.

•

3 April: The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) joined broadcasters in protesting over “unacceptable discrim ination” and restrictions being im posed on journalists covering the w ar in Iraq w hen they are not travelling w ith arm y units of the United States or Britain. Reports from journalists in southern Iraq state that m edia staff w ho are not part of the so-called “em bedded” group of reporters travelling under the official protection of the m ilitary are being forcibly rem oved. The IFJ w as also particularly concerned about reports that the m ilitary forces are singling out groups of journalists w ho are from countries that are not part of the coalition in support of the w ar.

•

4 April, Cairo, Egypt: During anti-w ar rallies police arrested and assaulted journalists. O ne of these journalists w as Philip Ide, w orking for the British M ail on Sunday, w ho w as seized by a dozen police officers, held to the ground, and had his cam era confiscated.

•

13 April: US Marines searched the room s of journalists at Baghdad’s Palestine Hotel. A Marines press officer Sgt José Guillen said that this w as to check that the hotel, w here m ost people from foreign m edia w ere living, w as “100% safe”. CNN producer Linda Roth said she opened her door to several arm ed soldiers w ho ordered her to leave w hile they searched the room .

JACQ UELINE G O DANY

55

56

•

13 April: US soldiers ordered the foreign m edia aw ay from an anti-US dem onstration in front of Baghdad’s Palestine Hotel, saying that the protesters w ere putting on a show “just for the press”, according to a US Marine officer. The 300 dem onstrators w ere dem anding for the third day in a row the restoration of public services, especially electricity, and an end to law lessness, w hich they blamed on US forces.

•

27 May: The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) released an investigative report about the 8 April shelling of the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad by US forces, w hich killed tw o journalists and w ounded three others. CPJ’s investigation, titled “Perm ission to Fire”, provided new details based on interview s w ith about a dozen reporters w ho w ere at the scene – including tw o em bedded journalists w ho m onitored the m ilitary radio traffic before and after the shelling occurred – suggesting that the attack on the journalists, w hile not deliberate, w as avoidable. CPJ had learned that Pentagon officials, as w ell as com m anders on the ground in Baghdad, knew that the Palestine Hotel w as full of international journalists and that they w ere intent on not hitting it.

How ever, these senior officers apparently failed to convey their concern to the tank commander w ho fired on the hotel.

The report can be accessed on the Internet: <http://w w w. cpj.org/Briefings/2003/palestine_hotel/palestine_hotel.html>

•

May: Reuters had barred CNN from using its Baghdad video feed after the Iraqi authorities ordered the new s agency not to supply the US netw ork w ith pictures. CNN had been expelled from Iraq, accused of being a “propaganda tool” for the US Arm y.

•

6 June: The International Federation of Journalists w arned coalition forces in Baghdad not to “stifle alternative voices” in media by imposing a code of conduct on reporters that has not been endorsed by Iraqi journalists. Responding to reports from Baghdad that coalition officials planned to impose a

T HE W AR IN IRAQ

code of conduct, the IFJ said attempts to regulate journalism in Iraq w ould backfire unless they met international standards and w ere supported by Iraqi media professionals.

•

9 June: The Al-Aalam netw ork, one of the m ost popular sources of new s in Iraq since the US-led invasion, reported that the cam eram en and reporters Sam i Hassan, Zoheir Mostafa and Ghuran Tofiq, w ere detained in front of the central police building in Baghdad. In April, Am erican Marines arrested another reporter from Al-Aalam, Abdol Hadi Zeigham i, w hile he w as reporting on US tanks entering the tow n of Kut, about 170 kilom etres south-east of Baghdad. He w as released after five hours of detention, but the film w hich the Al-Aalam crew had shot w as confiscated.

•

April: Boaz Bism uth of the Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot, Dan Scem am a of Israel’s Channel O ne, Luis Castro and Victor Silva of Radio Televisao Portuguesa – four journalists w ho had received accreditation as “unilaterals” and w ere nonem bedded – decided not to stay in Kuw ait and w ait for organized tours. They rented a jeep and w ent to Iraq on their ow n. O ne w eek later they crossed paths w ith US m ilitary police. They w ere told to drop to the sand, face dow n.

Their satellite phones, com puters and identifications w ere confiscated. As Luis Castro w as dem anding the chance to call his w ife, the soldiers threw him to the ground, placed their feet on his hands, neck and back, and then one of the soldiers kicked him in the ribs. The Am erican soldiers accused the four unilaterals of spying for Iraq and held them for m ore than 48 hours w ithout giving them food or w ater.

They w ere then forcibly returned to Kuw ait, w here their m aterial w as returned to them and they w ere allow ed to leave after several hours. Castro said that a first lieutenant by the last nam e Shaw later apologized, saying: “Try to understand, m y m en are trained like dogs – they just know how to attack. No hard feelings. God bless you.”

JACQ UELINE G O DANY

57

58

•

President George W. Bush adm itted during a press conference that he w as calling on reporters according to his prearranged list of nam es, w hich his press secretary, Ari Fleischer, later confirm ed preparing. “This is scripted,” Mr. Bush joked. At a televised new s conference in March, President Bush deliberately snubbed several reporters he ordinarily calls upon, including journalists from the Washington Post, N ewsweek, and USA Today. According to Jim Rutenberg of the N ew York Times, com plaints about White House secrecy had reached new levels. White House reporters stated that they had been given very lim ited inform ation about the cost, the length, and the risk of any m ilitary action in Iraq.

They also contended that after Septem ber 11, m any m ore policy and governm ental decisions w ere considered “off lim its” because of national security. Com plaints from the White House press corps ranged from the paucity of presidential press conferences to few er briefings from adm inistration policy experts to instances w here they believed they had been frozen out by White House officials w hen they asked questions considered out of bounds. For m any reporters and producers, the briefings had becom e an exercise in frustration, a White House-produced television program m e in w hich they said they felt like unam used straight m en, there to set up policy punchlines for Mr. Fleischer.

•

During the w ar CNN correspondent Kevin Sites also posted stories from northern Iraq on his very popular private w ebsite <w w w.kevinsites.net>. O n 20 March, Sites got orders from CNN to discontinue these postings. This led to an ongoing debate about w hether such postings are a legitim ate form of journalism and stories broke in the N ew York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and other new spapers. Many journalists are exploring this m edium for the first tim e in quest for new, independent and authentic w ays to tell the story of w ar.

T HE W AR IN IRAQ

•

Th e m usic ch an n el M TV Europe h ad sen t out a list of videos to be avoided durin g th e w ar. Th e list in cluded System of a D ow n ’s an ti-w ar son g “Boom !” directed by O scar-w in n er M ich ael M oore. Th e leadin g m usic ch an n el w ould n ot sh ow pop prom os th at featured “w ar, soldiers, w ar plan es, bom bs, m issiles, riots an d social un rest, executions and other obviously sensitive m aterial”, according to an in tern al m em o seen by M ediaGuardian .co.uk. BBC Radio 1 also rem oved poten tially con ten tious son gs from its playlist w h en th e w ar began .

•

May-June: The US m edia w atch group FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting) published a study that found dem ocracy poorly served by w ar coverage. They looked at 1,617 on-cam era sources appearing in stories about Iraq on the evening new scasts of six television netw orks and new s channels. All of these had a heavy em phasis on official sources, particularly current and form er US m ilitary personnel; each featured a large proportion of pro-w ar voices; and none gave m uch attention to dissenting voices. Nearly tw o-thirds of all sources, 64 per cent, w ere pro-w ar, w hile 71 per cent of US guests favoured the w ar. Anti-w ar voices com prised 10 per cent of all sources, but just 6 per cent of non-Iraqi sources and 3 per cent of US sources. <http:// w w w.fair.org/extra/0305/ w arstudy.htm l>

•

The Associated Press reported that at least 3,240 civilian deaths w ere recorded by hospitals in Iraq as a result of the recent w ar. AP reporters visited 60 of the country’s largest hospitals to review these records.

•

An independent volunteer group of British and US academ ics and researchers established a w ebsite on the Internet nam ed Iraq Body Count, w here they obtained casualty figures from a com prehensive survey of online m edia reports <w w w.iraqbodycount.net>. With this m ethod they estim ated that 5,000 to 7,000 civilians died in this conflict.

JACQ UELINE G O DANY

59

Conclusion. O n 6 Novem ber 2000, leading m edia professionals and officials from O SCE participating States, from the United Nations and the Council of Europe, m et in Berlin at a Round Table organized by the O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to discuss protection of journalists. At that m eeting a declaration w as adopted that specifically stated: “Although deliberately killing a journalist in tim e of w ar, as w ith any other civilian, can be classified as a w ar crim e, little had been done to bring perpetrators to justice. This issue m ay be discussed as part of the ongoing debate on the International Crim inal Court. Nevertheless, governm ents could enhance their efforts to investigate the m urders of journalists and to co-operate to this end.

Governm ents should m ake it also clear w ithin international organizations that the killing of journalists is not acceptable for the international com m unity.” Nevertheless, the death toll am ong w ar reporters is a statistic that is being recorded every year. It has not becom e a thing of the past.

Concerning the w ar in Iraq and em bedding of journalists, am ong the positive aspects of this new practice is the unprecedented access reporters now have to the battlefield and the ability to provide inform ation in real-tim e. As the Head of New sgathering at the BBC put it: “The advantage is that you get to see w hat’s going on at a very localized level. So, w hen w e talk about pockets of resistance, view ers can see exactly w hat w e m ean.” Em bedding also provides a degree of security that reporters could not even dream of before. They are treated as m em bers of a m ilitary unit and are afforded arm y protection.

How ever, how independent is this type of coverage?

How balanced can one be w hen one is attached for days or w eeks to a unit, sharing alm ost everything w ith its soldiers?

Bonds develop and bias m ay start creeping in. In the w ords of veteran Am erican television reporter and m edia critic Marvin Kalb: “A large degree of editorial control over live coverage of 60

T HE W AR IN IRAQ

the battle rests w ith the US m ilitary, not w ith the journalist.”

As another com m entator w rote: “The danger in such a concept is that Am erican reporters start to identify so closely w ith Am erican soldiers that w e as Am erican view ers w ill get a one-dim ensional view of w ar and w ill not get the stories that paint its full picture.” And the reality is that an absolute m ajority of reporters is em bedded: the BBC, for exam ple, has 16 em bedded reporters. The only unem bedded ones are in Baghdad and there is one team in northern Iraq. The danger is that not all but som e journalists act m ore like m ilitary press officers rath er th an in depen den t observers. An d w h en a respected TV reporter starts referring to an Am erican tank as “the best killing m achine in the w orld”, responsible journalism has been sacrificed.

Another problem related to em bedding concerns the treatm ent of those reporters w ho are not em bedded, as m entioned above. During the w ar, the IFJ and the European Broadcasting Union protested against w hat they called “unacceptable discrim ination” and restrictions being im posed on journalists w ho w ere not travelling w ith arm y units of the United States or Britain. Journalists in southern Iraq reported that m edia staff w ho w ere not em bedded w ere being forcibly rem oved.

The tem ptation to try to control the m edia is even greater at a tim e of crisis and this m alady strikes the m ost dem ocratic of governm ents. The International Federation of Journalists recently issued a statem ent w arning that “Governm ents and m ilitary leaders should not try to m anipulate m edia for their ow n purposes, particularly if they are in breach of international law.”

So urces: IFJ, International federation of Journalists • CPJ, Com m ittee to Protect Journalists IPI, International Press Institute • RSF, Reporters sans frontières • FAIR, Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting • Reuters • Associated Press • BBC N ews • The Guardian Slate • World Press Review • The Freedom of Inform ation Center • Electronic Iraq 61

62

T HE W AR IN IRAQ

Freim ut Duve Freedo m and Respo nsibility Media in Multilingual So cieties

In recent years there has been increasing recognition of the crucial im portance of the role of the m edia in different languages w ithin m ultilingual dem ocracies. O ur project Freedom and Responsibility – M edia in M ultilingual Societies that w as launched in Septem ber 2002 has addressed for the very first tim e this im portant issue in a com plex and com prehensive w ay. Independent experts w ere appointed to w rite country reports investigating the current w orking environm ent for the m edia in five m ultilingual countries w hich, both in their pasts and presents, couldn’t be m ore different: the form er Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Luxem bourg, Moldova, Serbia and Montenegro, and Sw itzerland. All reports contain the sam e structure: the starting point is a description of the legal fram ew ork, w hich is follow ed by a detailed overview of the m edia outlets functioning in different languages. A special chapter is alw ays devoted to the best practices existing in the countries. The sim ilar structure allow s the reader to com pare the situation in the different countries.

The project w as a prem iere not only from the point of view of its uniquely broad geographical scope but also on account of its theoretical approach. The subject w as not investigated from the com m on m ajority-m inority perspective, w hich autom atically brings w ith it a dem arcation and differentiation. O ur project, on the contrary, w as m eant to show that w hat w e should focus on is not how languages divide us but on w hat unites us, w hich is being a citizen of a country w here w e live. The key w ord here is “citizenship”. O f course, FREIMUT D UVE

63

all of us have different backgrounds, but as citizens w e have a com m on responsibility and com m on rights.

Sw itzerland and Luxembourg represent undeniable historical successes in the management of linguistic diversity. At the beginning of the tw entieth century, the “national myth” w as more or less consciously developed to this end in Sw itzerland. In practice, this meant that the supposedly destabilizing quadrilingualism of the country w as turned into an advantage and, more precisely, construed into a w orthy trait. What w as perceived as a fatal rift has developed into the essence of the Sw iss nation. Similarly in Luxembourg, historical tradition and, of course, economic necessity have resulted in the peculiar situation of the peaceful coexistence of three languages. In Sw itzerland and Luxembourg nobody sees the language variety as a threat to the security or unity of the country, but rather as an enrichment of their identity and their culture. The Sw iss and Luxembourg unique experiences w ith diversity in their societies have validity and a value w hich arguably transcends their national boundaries.

Indeed, in line w ith our history of thousands of years of m igration and m ixing of different peoples, no society is truly hom ogeneous. According to som e sources there are approxim ately 5,000 national groups living in the contem porary w orld, and about 3,000 linguistic groups. In fact, all European countries are m ultilingual! The question then rem ains, w hy are the different language and ethnic groups in certain geographic regions still considered as a source of problem s? Statistics clearly state that in Western Europe exactly the sam e percentage of the population, nam ely 14.7 per cent, belongs to national or linguistic groups, as in the Central and Eastern European region *. In the 1980s in Vojvodina, part of today’s Serbia (Serbia and Montenegro), 26 nations and nationalities w ere present and w ere living peacefully together, and, according to Marta Pal*

64

Snezana Trifunovska, M inority Rights in Europe. European M inorities and Languages (The Hague, 2001).

M EDIA IN M ULTILINGUAL SO CIETIES

ics, a journalist w ith M agyz Szo, even the w ord “m inority” w as alm ost an insult during these tim es. No society is truly hom ogeneous, and the transition to dem ocracy cannot be accom plished w ithout recognition of this fact. The essence of dem ocracy assum es the full inclusion and integration of all peoples into the life of the nation, no m atter w hat language they speak.

The form er Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Moldova, and Serbia and Montenegro are countries at the beginning of their nation-building process and civil society developm ent.

Media, in all languages, spoken in the country represents a pow erful social resource that can – and m ust – be m obilized to assist in this process.

The five country reports, w hich w ere elaborated in the course of the project, w ere m ade public for the first tim e at a conference m y O ffice organized in co-operation w ith the Institute of Mass Com m unication Studies in Bern, on 28 and 29 March 2003 in Sw itzerland. It w as im portant that Milo Dor, him self a w riter w ith a m ultilingual background, agreed to address the event. The conference brought together journalists, m edia NGO s and governm ental representatives from the five countries not only to report about the current w orking environm ent for the m edia, but also to exchange inform ation and view s w ith their colleagues from the other countries. Thanks to this broad geographical approach – reports on Sw edish-language m edia in Finland and Germ an-speaking m edia in Denm ark w ere also presented – the conference becam e a unique forum for discussion. The session devoted to “diversity reporting”, as an efficient instrument to promote tolerance and understanding through the m edia, becam e a highlight of the conference. Representatives of three w ell-know n media NGO s presented the concept of “diversity reporting” and critically evaluated their w ork in South-East Europe. During the last session of the conference som e of the best existing practices in all five countries w ere presented.

FREIMUT D UVE

65

The conference has identified som e key problem s holding back the developm ent of m edia in different languages, especially in the form er Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia (Serbia and Montenegro) and Moldova: • • • •

m issing self-sustainability of the m edia outlets insufficient professionalism of the m anagem ent low level training in diversity reporting lack of collegial solidarity betw een journalists from different ethnic backgrounds.

In the cases of Sw itzerland and Luxem bourg, speakers at the conference acknow ledged that governm ent and m edia should do m ore to better integrate m igrants by creating specific program m es in national broadcast and print products. Additionally, they should be offered better opportunities to learn the languages spoken in their new hom eland.

The results of the project have show n that, despite all differences that are determ ining the w orking environm ent of the m edia in the different countries, the follow ing factors have universal validity: 1. Support from the governm ent is of crucial im portance for the survival of m edia in different languages everyw here. The state institutions should be aw are of their responsibility and create a legal fram ew ork that w ould be favourable to m edia in different languages, if this has not yet been established. Possibilities for defining legal provisions that w ould introduce positive discrim ination should be explored. In addition to this, and bearing in m ind the fact that this kind of m edia can never be fully self-sustainable, governm ents should continue or begin to provide long-term financial support to these m edia outlets. O n the other hand, the practice of direct state funding w hich exists in som e countries alw ays leaves room for state control over m edia and should be abandoned. Follow ing the exam ples of 66

M EDIA IN M ULTILINGUAL SO CIETIES

Sw itzerland, Luxem bourg, Finland and Denm ark, m echanism s of indirect support, such as tax policy and postage costs, should be considered in order to enable m edia to operate independently. Governm ents should ensure that citizens w ho are m em bers of linguistic groups have the right and the opportunity to freely express, preserve and develop their language via m edia. If this is not the case and the readers, view ers and listeners have little or no trust in the locally produced m edia, there is a tendency to look to the neighbouring foreign m edia, w hich I describe as “big brother m edia”. In the long term this could have a destabilizing effect on society. Each country needs its ow n independent, em ancipated m edia w hich is a guarantor for the public debate that is im perative for the developm ent of a civil society.

2. The m edia should be able to play a constructive role in com bating discrim ination, prom oting understanding and building stable peace in m ultilingual societies. The reports show ed that hate speech and hatred against the others have to a great extent disappeared from the m edia scene, but the gap betw een the different audiences still exists. “Positive speech” about each other is still very rare. The aim of the m edia should be to reflect the m ulti-ethnic and m ultilingual society instead of focusing only on their ow n community and forgetting the needs of other groups. Professional standards and ethical principles of journalism should be set and im plem ented. Journalistic education is of very high im portance. All levels of education have to be developed and im proved.

3. The role of public service broadcasters is still vitally im portant. The private sector alone cannot guarantee per se a pluralistic m edia landscape. Besides the legally secured am ount of program m ing in different languages, public broadcasters should devote pertinent attention to the life and situation of FREIMUT D UVE

67

the different ethnic groups living in the country. The coverage of issues concerning these groups m ust be one of the m ajor priorities of prim e tim e new s and current affairs program m es.

4. Bilingual or m ultilingual m edia, i.e. one m edia outlet broadcasting or publishing in different languages, w ill be able to deliver positive results only if society accepts m ultilingualism as part of a norm al everyday situation. O ne should consider applying the exam ple of Radio Canal 3 from Biel/Bienne in Sw itzerland. The program m es there are prepared by m ultilingual staff but are broadcast in one language. The Finnish exam ple of using subtitles for m ost TV program m es should also be seriously considered in other m ultilingual countries in order to avoid the danger of “ghettoization” of society through the m edia, w hich w as reported at the conference.

As a result of the project, recom m endations for each country w ere draw n up to be used as guidelines for future developm ents in the m edia in the respective countries.

I am convinced that the book w hich w as published after the conference w ill have a productive effect in tw o w ays. In the exam ined countries, all those involved – governm ents, m edia NGO s, journalists – w ill think about new w ays of facing the positive challenge of their m ultilingual structure. Further, I am sure that the project is also very valuable because the best practices described in the country reports and the recom m endations could be used to benefit the further development of the media in other m ultilingual societies.

I w ould like to share w ith you som ething on the background of the song w ith w hich I opened the conference in Bern. The history of this song w as brought to m y attention in a rem arkable docum entary by the fam ous Bulgarian film m aker Adela Peeva, and is at the sam e tim e very com plicated 68

M EDIA IN M ULTILINGUAL SO CIETIES

and very sim ple. The song exists in not less than seven languages, in Turkish, Greek, Albanian, Serbian, Macedonian, Bulgarian etc., and has a different nam e in all these countries.

But it is alw ays the sam e song and this is w hat is im portant!

Songs and languages should join us and not divide us!

The text is adapted from the book Media in Multilingual Societies (Vienna: O SCE, 2003).

FREIMUT D UVE

69

Milo Dor Co nference Address: Media in Multilingual So cieties

My ancestors w ere Serbs, w ho had fled to Austria m ore than 300 years ago to escape the Turks, and settled north of the Danube, a natural border, on the fertile plain left by the now vanished Pannonian Sea. They w ere granted land on condition that they w ould defend this border area against the O ttom ans.

At this tim e, Belgrade w as an outpost of the Turkish Em pire, w hich w as occupied for a short tim e by the Austrians at the beginning of the eighteenth century. After the fortress w as lost again to the Turks, Maria Theresia had the area to the north, w here Hungarians, Rom anians and Serbs w ere already settled, further populated by people of Sw abian and Ruthenian origin, the latter from both Ukraine and Slovakia. O thers w ho found refuge there w ere Greeks and Bulgarians, w ho had fled before the Turkish advance, as w ell as Jew s in search of a hom eland. Thus this “m iltiary frontier” becam e a true reflection of the m ulti-ethnic state.

Up to the final collapse of the Habsburg Em pire, in other w ords until 1918, m y ancestors used to receive a certain am ount of salt and oil each year, under an agreem ent dating from the eighteenth century.

I spent m y childhood in this region, know n as Vojvodina (in Germ an Woiwodschaft), w hich by the m iddle of the nineteenth century had acquired a kind of autonom y. Although the Austro-Hungarian Em pire no longer existed, m any traces rem ained, above all the colourful m ix of ethnic groups that w ere all at hom e there. Apart from m y m other tongue, I w as quite used to hearing Germ an, Hungarian and Rom anian spoken w idely. My grandm other on m y m other’s side, a Greek M ILO D O R

71

lady w ho w as brought up in Vienna, spoke Germ an w ith m e, because she could not express herself too w ell in Serbian.

My father, born in 1895 in a village in Banat, had grow n up in a huge area, geographically-speaking, w here m any ethnic groups had lived together, w illingly or not. But this state structure had fallen apart because the rulers w ere not in a position to solve the national problem s, and therefore indirectly, the social problem s.

When the First World War broke out, m y father had just left school and w anted to study m edicine. That w as the reason w hy he w as called up to serve in the m edical corps.

Although he lived after the w ar in the new ly-created Yugoslav State, he continued his studies in Budapest, in other w ords in the territory of the form er Dual Monarchy.

When the new Hungarian authorities began to indulge in extrem e nationalism , m y father, instead of returning to Yugoslavia, w ent on to Poland, w here in Poznan he took his final tw o sem esters and com pleted his doctoral diplom a.

At the end of 1939, w hen Poland w as overrun by Hitlerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s troops, part of the beaten and disarmed Polish army fled tow ards the south and came by w ay of Romania to Belgrade, from w here the Poles w andered further. My father used to speak to Polish officers or even ordinary soldiers on the street and invite them back to lunch or dinner, just to speak to them in Polish.

The first surgery m y father started practising in w as in a Rom anian village. Then for a tim e he w as the local general practitioner in a village in the Batschka, inhabited by Serbs and Ruthenians, w ho w ere know n there as Russinen. Later, he studied plastic surgery w ith a Jew ish professor in Berlin.

During the m iddle of the w ar, he m oved to Vienna, in order to be close to the prison in w hich I w as kept. Here he again becam e a GP, and looked after the Italian forced labourers, w ith w hom he got on w ell.

I adm ire m y father, w ho m astered so m any of the languages spoken in the form er Habsburg Em pire. Altogether it 72

C O NFERENCE ADDRESS: M EDIA IN M ULTILINGUAL SO CIETIES

w as six – his m other-tongue, Serbo-Croatian, or Croat-Serbian, then Germ an, Hungarian, Polish, Rom anian and Italian.

To that could be added three dead languages, Ancient Greek and Latin – w hich he learned in secondary school – and Hebrew, w hich out of boredom he had picked up out of a Konvikt (Jew ish book) from a Rabbi friend of his father’s.

My father w as a true Central European, or better, a European w ithout being conscious of it, because for him it w as natural to learn the languages of his patients, instead of forcing them to speak to him in his ow n language. It w as just as natural for him as m inistering help to sick patients; he took them as he found them , w ithout asking about their nationality, religion or som e exceptional or stupid view. He w as a practising hum anist, and I adm ire that in him because I, as a w riter, only have at m y disposal w ords, w hose effect can be questionable.

After the collapse of com m unist ideology – w hich had m ade it possible in the nam e of international solidarity for the Soviet Union to repress so m any ethnic groups just like a nineteenth-century colonial pow er – there began to re-em erge from the ruins of a bankrupt system (though not only there) the ancient ideological spectres, w hich one had hoped had been safely packed aw ay in the trunks of history; above all the spectre of nationalism .

By that I mean of course not national consciousness, w hich stem s from the free, hum ane traditions of an ethnic group, but that form of nationalism as an aggressive ideology, w hich sees an enem y in every different or different-looking group.

No nation exists w hich has not at som e point in its history com m itted som e w rong. The battles, w on or lost, in pursuit of greater em pire, the pow er struggles betw een different dynasties usually ending in m urder, the repression of others or groups w ith a different w ay of thinking, are no reason to feel particularly proud.

European culture, of w hich w e can all rightly be proud, is the result of the efforts of num erous individuals from m any M ILO D O R

73

ethnic groups, w ho succeeded in looking beyond the narrow horizons of their ow n m ountains and valleys. This has resulted in the Renaissance and the Enlightenm ent, that prom ise to m ake Europe into a hum ane land, a com m unity in w hich it is com pletely irrelevant w ho belongs to w hich nation and to w hich god he prays, w here the only thing that counts is how one person behaves tow ards another and w hat he does.

In com parison to this diverse culture w ith all its freedom s and dem ocratic traditions, the nationalist rallies w ith their separatist flags and their m artial brass-band m usic shrink into a foolish folklore.

Never w ere half so m any people so vehem ently seized w ith the idea of a European identity as today, yet never w ere so m any petty iron curtains erected, blocking a true association w hich m ust be based on a free exchange of people, goods and ideas.

It is plain that such a union of all European ethnic groups is the only chance to survive in this beautiful, colourful w orld.

Yet how can w e put a stop to these raised spectres of intolerance and contem pt for fellow m en (in the eyes of m ilitant nationalists all the peoples of other nations are inferior) w hen all appeals to intelligence apparently fail?

“What do w e have left?” the great Croatian, non-conform ist w riter, Miroslav Krleza, has asked him self, only to respond at once: “A box of lead-type, and that is not m uch, but it is the only thing that hum ans have invented until today as a w eapon to defend one’s hum anity.”

What other choices are indeed left to us if w e don’t w ish to look helplessly on as our hopes of a bright, free, equalitysharing Europe of m any nations appear to finally disappear in the foggy haze of aggressive, dogm atic nationalism ?

This text is M ilo Dor’s address to the conference Freedom and Responsibility – Media in Multilingual Societies that took place in Bern in M arch 2003.

74

C O NFERENCE ADDRESS: M EDIA IN M ULTILINGUAL SO CIETIES

Johannes von Dohnanyi The Impact o f Media Co ncentratio n o n Pro fessio nal Jo urnalism

No m odern open society can do w ithout the free flow of inform ation. New spapers, radio, television and increasingly the Internet, too, are indispensable tools and not only for the distribution of inform ation. The function of the m edia as the guardian against any abuse of political and industrial pow er has often been described. Probably even m ore im portant, how ever, is the role of a free and independent press as a fundam ental instrum ent for social cohesion through an open social and political debate. Because dem ocracy cannot flourish w ithout free and independent m edia, their preservation m ust be a top priority.

Am ong the different types of m edia, daily new spapers fulfil a very special role. This role is not only to inform on relevant national, regional and local facts and developm ents. Various studies have show n that inform ation carried by new spapers tends to have m ore influence on consum ersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; understanding than the sam e inform ation carried by television and radio. The unanim ous conclusion of those studies: regular readers of daily new spapers are high in political com petence.

Yet, in m any countries this very backbone of dem ocracy is increasingly com ing under threat. Som etim es this is the result of pressure from the political and/or the econom ic environm ent. More often it is financial w eakness that m akes new spapers vulnerable to the unforgiving forces of an ever m ore globalized m arket.

The econom ic situation of the print m edia does, of course, depend in part on the overall state of the econom y.

The m ain reason for the accelerating crisis of the print m edia, JO HANNES VO N D O HNANYI

75

how ever, has been the liberalization of the television and radio sector and, in particular, the arrival of the Internet. Television has becom e the m edia of choice for product advertisem ent. And classified ads, w hether housing, second hand cars or job offers, have dram atically shifted aw ay from the print m edia to the Internet.

This latter developm ent alone has resulted in a reduction of new spaper revenues of up to 30 per cent. All indications show that this is a definite trend w hich w ill continue. Increases in sales prices and cost cutting are w ays of countering the resulting financial difficulties. Merging w ith stronger national or international com petitors is another option.

Econom ically this m ay be acceptable. The m edia are part of the service industry and as such are subjected to norm al m arket rules. The experience in som e Western European countries during the 1970s and 1980s indicates that a certain degree of concentration can lead to a healthy consolidation of the print m edia sector and m ay, therefore, even be desirable.

Sim ilarly m any of the m edia in Central and Eastern European countries w ould not have survived the transitional period follow ing the collapse of the old regim es w ithout the m assive influx of foreign capital.

Concentration m ovem ents in the print m edia sector do, how ever, carry high risks. By elim inating independent new s sources, both content and opinion pluralism m ay be curtailed.

This w ould result in a direct and negative im pact on the citizensâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; right to inform ation.

But concentration processes also put pressure on the m ost valuable asset m edia com panies possess: journalists.

A logical w ay for print m edia to fight the crisis w ould be to strengthen its unique position w ithin the inform ation sector and to strive for drastic im provem ents in journalistic quality.

Instead, more and more publishers opt for the reduction of their full-tim e w riting staff. Financial and econom ic m anagem ent 76

IMPACT

O F M EDIA

C O NCENTRATIO N

successfully influence the editorial line to adopt a stance that reflects the line of thought of political pow ers and/or industry and its advertisem ent agencies. Editors-in-chief are forced into m ainstream ing the content of their new spapers. Being costly w ithout the certainty of im m ediate results, investigative journalism is cut dow n to a m inim um . Inform ation gathering as w ell as background research is outsourced to new s agencies and freelance journalists. Increasingly professional journalists have the feeling that they are considered to be m ore a necessary nuisance than an asset. It w as the young editor-in-chief of a respected Sw iss w eekly paper w ho so aptly coined the term “journalistic Darw inism ”. According to this perverse concept journalists w ho do not feel safe in their job w ill perform better.

The w orrying result: solid traditional journalism is replaced by new concepts like “infotainm ent” and “edutainm ent”. Forgetting the rules of factual reporting, “faction” – the com bination of facts and fiction – is becom ing the order of the day. Many journalists adm it to having been pressured by publishers and editors not to report on events or inform ation obtained on people, institutions or industry that are considered im portant for the paper. The sam e journalists adm it to regularly succum bing to such pressure.

“Journalistic Darw inism ” is in full sw ing. Since the end of th e “Golden Nin eties” th ousan ds of journ alists all across Europe have lost their jobs. In m any cases publishers and editors have used the financial dire straits of their new spapers to get rid of their m ost experienced, and therefore m ore difficult to m anipulate, journalists. Instead of producing better perform ing journalists this selection process has led to nothing but a dram atic levelling of quality standards w hich in turn has led to a significant loss of credibility. The results are dram atic: across Europe new spapers are losing out to television and the Internet.

JO HANNES VO N D O HNANYI

77

Freim ut Duve The Spiegel Affair: It is no t just the Letter that Co unts but the Spirit o f the Law

The tw entieth century has experienced m any transitions from dictatorship to dem ocracy and vice versa: the destruction of dem ocracy by dictatorship. Freedom of the m edia as w ell as the rule of law plays a central role for both. To guarantee independent journalists free reporting, or to silence free reports in a w ay both total and totalitarian. This not only m eant that freedom fell by the w ayside but that m any courageous journalists ended up in prisons, w ere forced to leave their hom elands, or w ere killed.

The hope of averting these dangers once and for all – at least in Europe – prom pted the O SCE process to establish m y O ffice. As the chair of the third com m ittee of the O SCE Parliam ent, I personally had also given m y utm ost support to this because m y ow n country – Germ any – had tw ice endured the bitter experience of dictatorship. And on tw o occasions a liberal dem ocracy had to em erge from the m edia dictatorship.

In 1945 West Germany, occupied by the three Western pow ers of Great Britain, France and the USA, w as rapidly placed on the road to democracy. It w as British and American officers w ho issued the first licences for new spapers to young journalists. Springer Verlag w as created in this w ay, as w as Der Spiegel, today one of the largest and most influential w eekly magazines in Europe. Some of the journalists w ho had fled in 1933 had returned from exile and, after the Federal Republic of Germany w as founded, started w orking in their former profession again.

In 1949 there w ere already clear signs of liberal and very professional journalism . After the end of the Germ an dictatorsh ip this seem ed to be a m atter of course. The freedom of the FREIMUT D UVE

79

m edia w as not just guaranteed in the new Constitution, but the spirit of these law s also m eant that young journalists could pursue their profession w ithout fearing governm ent intervention in their w ork. Yet at the sam e tim e subservience to the State survived – a legacy of the previous period.

Today, during the difficult process of dem ocratic m odernization in the States of the form er Soviet Union, the past experiences of other European countries in creating a liberal clim ate for professional, critical journalism after dictatorship are all too easily forgotten. Many of the post-Soviet States of the O SCE w ill soon have been w orking on this task for 14 years. My O ffice casts a critical eye over this process. It therefore seem ed to m e only fair to recall how 17 years after the end of Hitler’s dictatorship, the dem ocratically elected Governm ent under Konrad Adenauer and Franz Josef Strauss detained behind bars the publisher Rudolf Augstein and leading journalists from Der Spiegel. And also to recollect how the dem ocratic protest and outcry against this undem ocratic surprise attack led to a true stabilization of m edia freedom in Germ any.

The journalists w ere charged w ith betrayal of secrets and thus treason, because they had disclosed m ilitary secrets (cover story of 18 O ctober 1962).

Ten days later, on 26 O ctober 1962, 30 police officers from the Federal O ffice of Crim inal Investigation burst into the editorial offices of Der Spiegel. Augstein ended up in prison, and Germ any faced its greatest press scandal 17 years after Hitler’s dow nfall. It becam e the Germ an dem ocratic public’s greatest success in supporting freedom of the m edia. People protested for days in all of Germ any’s cities and in schools there w ere discussions about the independence of the press.

The author of these lines, then a young scholar at the University of Ham burg, dem onstrated in front of the prison gates w ith hundreds of other like-m inded people.

80

T HE SPIEGEL AFFAIR

It soon becam e obvious that Defence Minister F. J. Strauss’s greatest concern w as for him self. Der Spiegel had alw ays been very critical of him ! If “treason” could place Augstein behind bars then Strauss w ould be protected from other criticism .

Augstein w as soon released; Strauss had to resign.

My O ffice is repeatedly faced w ith the problem that politicians believe that they are above any form of criticism and that w hoever attacks them or presents their dirty w ashing to the public is acting against the interests of the State. We see this in m any post-com m unist States to this day. Politicians think that they deserve special protection from criticism . The w orld w itnessed how even Clinton, President of the United States, w as harshly criticized in public for his personal behaviour, som etim es in w ays that w ere unacceptable, and how he had to face the public. He could not take his attackers to court. Politicians in dem ocracy m ust expose them selves to special criticism . If they w ant to avoid this then they should not becom e politicians.

With this scandal, now over forty years ago, Germ any took a significant step into the dem ocratic landscape of free m edia – a precious asset of our dem ocratic history!

The w ork of investigative journalists has led to unexpected results. Recently, there have been repeated cases in w hich leading politicians, or m ayors of m ajor cities w ere forced to resign because reports about how they w ere discharging their office resulted in trials and charges. The route of sm uggling one’s w ay across the path of crim inal law by m eans of libel paragraphs has today been blocked in Germ any. This is also a result of the Spiegel Affair of over forty years ago.

We also w ant to rem ind others about this. There is no blueprint for m edia freedom , but it has to be created from citizens’ close attention to the spirit of the law s.

This article is the preface to a booklet that was published in Russian and presented in M oscow in September 2003 called The Spiegel Affair (M oscow: Glagol Publishing House, 2003).

FREIMUT D UVE

81

Achim Koch mobile.culture.container *

In our first book 1 w e described how the vision of a m obile secondary school becam e reality as the m obile.culture.container.

This project has been described m any hundreds of tim es: mobile.culture.container – a project of the Defence of our Future Fund, a project for young people in w ar-w orn cities in form er Yugoslavia, a peace project, a m edia project, a pilot project for conflict-ridden regions, a project in the fram ew ork of the Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe in close co-operation w ith the O SCE.2 The containers travelled for three years through the countries of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro, Macedonia, and Kosovo. They stayed for three to five w eeks in each of the follow ing cities: Tuzla (BiH), O sijek (Croatia), Cacak (Serbia and Montenegro), Gorazde (BiH), Mostar (BiH), Banja Luka (BiH), Skopje (Macedonia), Bitola (Macedonia), Mitrovica (Kosovo), Novi Pazar (Serbia and Montenegro), Brcko (BiH). Som e of these cities w ere visited tw ice.3 Many thousands of young people betw een the ages of 14 and 21 cam e “to the containers” betw een the years 2001 and 2003. In every city betw een tw o and three hundred of them decided to take part in the projects of mobile.culture.container.

The m ost successful results w ere alw ays in the cities w here the conflicts can still obviously be sensed today: in Gorazde, Mostar, Mitrovica and Brcko.

The 16 containers w ere set up in a circle that w as covered w ith a stage floor and w ith a tent roof above. Container interiors w ere created that w ere used as an Internet café, library, video and radio room , kitchen, office, technical adm inistration, *The follow ing four articles are reprinted from the book We Are Defending O ur Future: mobile.culture.container 2001-2003 (Vienna, 2003).

ACHIM KO CH

83

a w orkshop or stores.4 Under the tent roof, in the projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s forum , there w ere group discussions about the young peoplesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; futures, and new spaper w orkshops, film evenings, podium discussions, band perform ances or disco evenings w ere also held.

Everything served one purpose: to talk and w ork w ith the young people on the subject of their future. In discussion groups, film s, radio broadcasts, interview s, on photos, in plays, new spapers, and literary pieces, young people not only presented the m any facets of a vision of their ow n future but also expressed the apparently insurm ountable obstacles.5 They described the generally authoritarian school and teaching system , that their parents w ere still stuck in a past of w ar and violence, that sexuality w as a taboo subject, being constantly and divisively identified through religious and ethnic affiliation, the seem ingly hopeless situation in the education and training system and on the job m arket, the basic evil of corruption or the deeply-rooted w ish to leave their ow n country. For m ost young people overcoming obstacles on the w ay to a chosen future and devising a clear life vision appeared alm ost im possible.

For m any, mobile.culture.container w as a project w here they could start this process, w hich offered help of a kind they could not get elsew here, either at school or in their parental hom e.

As the first step, for m any the discussion about their future w as im portant, because they had not been able to talk about this subject together anyw here before. The fact that these discussions tackled a com m on subject for all, transcending religious or ethnic divisions, w as itself an im portant goal, for exam ple in a city like Brcko w here the tw o final years at gram m ar school are still taught in classes that are divided ethnically. Yet also the freedom of the discussions, w ithout being regim ented by teachers, anim ated m any to say things they had never expressed in front of other young people of the sam e age before. O pen and released from pressures, m any of 84

MO BILE. CULTURE. CO NTAINER

them ventured tow ards lucid ideas, prom pting them to further thought and then to transform these ideas into concrete tasks.

Even young people w ho as children had had particularly intense confrontations w ith w ar and violence and as a rule never spoke about this, often opened up for us in an astonishing w ay. The projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s second film 6 show s this process. Many young people took the opportunity provided by the project to â&#x20AC;&#x153;talk freelyâ&#x20AC;?. People w orking for m obile.culture.container rapidly noticed the need behind this w ish to talk and started to understand how they often helped by listening. Som e of the young people later explained their ow n relief at having the chance to talk about their experiences. Their life becam e easier after opening up. Yet the m em ories w ill alw ays cast a shadow on their lives. Sevji m entions this at the end of her story As if N othing Had Ever Happened.

Many had another experience, w hen they not only talked and w orked w ith their fellow students but also travelled to cooperate w ith pupils in other cities w hich mobile.culture.container had visited before. The pupils from Gorazde, w ho met up w ith those from Visegrad in 2001, had since the w ar never talked to, or even seen, students from this city that is just 30 kilometres aw ay in the Republika Srpska, and vice versa.7 Pupils from Banja Luka in the Republika Srpska had similar experiences w hen they met up w ith young people from Mostar or Jajce. Although they lived in the same state they had previously believed that there could be no com m on future together. mobile.culture.container started to connect these groups of young people.

The visits to Mitrovica in 2002 8 and 2003 w ere special experiences. The city in northern Kosovo is still seen as the m ost conflict-ridden place in Kosovo, because here is the dividing line betw een the south, populated m ainly by Kosovo Albanians, and the north, inhabited prim arily by Serbs. The partition is m arked by the river Ibar, w hich flow s through the city.

The m ain bridge crossing the Ibar is guarded by KFO R soldiers ACHIM KO CH

85

(Kosovo Forces) and in recent years w as the scene of recurrent clashes betw een inhabitants of the north and south of the city.

While the southern part of Kosovo accepted adm inistration by the UN (UNMIK – United Nations Mission in Kosovo), large parts of the Serbian population from the north refused to recognize this until the international com m unity safeguarded the property rights of Serbs w ho had fled and been driven out of southern Kosovo. The result w as a state of law lessness in northern Mitrovica in the sum m er of 2002, although KFO R and international police w ere patrolling these areas.

In this situation and on the invitation of UNMIK, the Defence of our Future Fund decided to visit Mitrovica in 2002 and to look for a solution to bring young people from both sides together. With the help of UNMIK and KFO R, mobile. culture.container created a neutral place on the bridge across the Ibar, w hich all young people could visit. From the existing bridge, steps w ere constructed to the m iddle of the river. From here visitors w ent via a footbridge to the location of mobile.culture.container, w hich had been closed off com pletely to the surrounding area by KFO R. Young people from the north and south had to go through KFO R checkpoints and could then enter a neutral zone w ith equal rights.

O ver three hundred young people from both sides participated in the four w eeks’ w ork of the project. Many hundreds visited a com m unal place for the first tim e – peacefully and together. They danced, discussed and w orked together w ithout conflicts flaring up. The young people produced a radio program m e lasting eighty-eight hours w hich, w ith the help of KFO R, w as broadcast throughout Kosovo in Serbian and Albanian. At the end they endeavoured to continue their w ork together. Today part of this is housed in refurbished room s in the city’s cultural centre.

This particular success w as not w ithout challenge. At the end of its visit mobile.culture.container w as faced w ith a m edia 86

MO BILE. CULTURE. CO NTAINER

cam paign from Serbian politicians and governm ent m em bers.

The project’s w ork suffered as a result – especially in the next city of Novi Pazar (Serbia and Montenegro).9 In spite of this, the success could not be dim inished. In 2003, mobile.culture.container visited Mitrovica for a second tim e to support the ongoing w ork.

In Mitrovica a youth new spaper w as created – as in nine other cities. Together w ith the local NGO MCYPC the m onthly journal Future M agazine w as issued. Today this is distributed in Serbian and Albanian not only in Mitrovica, but also throughout Kosovo. mobile.culture.container founded ten youth new spapers that w ith the support of Allianz-Kulturstiftung w ere fitted out w ith technical equipm ent.10 The printing costs w ere also covered.11 The project developed a netw ork of correspondence betw een editorial team s and linked up the young peoples’ w ork.

The final task in 2003 w as to strengthen the lasting results.

Apart from the new spapers, there w ere radio 12 and video groups that had emerged from the project’s w ork in these areas, w hich had continued their w ork even after mobile.culture.container had m oved on. International donors w ere even found for Mitrovica w ho supported an Internet Centre.13 There w ere also concepts for photo, video, radio and scenography groups.

Based on these results, in 2003 mobile.culture.container m odified its concept 14 and concentrated on the m edia. The containers w ere partly refurbished. New spaper, television and radio containers w ere created w here definite results could be produced. These included a daily new spaper and a television and radio program m e w hich w ere broadcast by local stations.

Together the young people took as their them e their thoughts about the future and ideas about how to rem ove obstacles on the path to their future. Parallel to this, sem inars w ere held at every location w here w ith the help of specialists young people had the opportunity to learn m ore about m edia w ork. Under ACHIM KO CH

87

the leitm otif Freedom and Responsibility of the M edia they also learnt a lot about dealing w ith one of the basic rights of a dem ocratic society.

In July 2003 the end of all this w ork w as attained. The mobile.culture.container construction w as transferred over to the responsibility of the city of Mostar. The project’s progress w ill be accom panied and observed by the Defence of our Future Fund for a period of tim e. The youth new spapers w ill receive financial support for several m onths. But then it is envisaged that the results of these three years of w ork w ill continue to exist independently.

1 Freim ut Duve and Achim Koch (eds.), Balkan: Die Jugend nach dem Krieg (Vienna: Folio, 2002), 71 ff.

2 Press archive on the pages 2001, 2002, 2003 at <w w w.m obileculture.org> 3 Gorazde, Mitrovica, Mostar 4 tours of m cc – on tour 2002 – about – container hardw are – at <w w w.m obile-culture.org> 5 We presented the first results in our film “Cut 3 Tim es”; 45 m ins., Igor Bararon/Nina Kusturica on behalf of the Defence of our Future Fund.

6 “O ut of Fram e – Young People after the War”; 60 m ins., Igor Bararon on behalf of the Defence of our Future Fund.

7 tours of m cc – on tour 2001 – Gorazde – at <w w w.m obile-culture.org> 8 tours of m cc – on tour 2002 – Mitrovice/a – new s – at <w w w.m obileculture.org> 9 tours of m cc – on tour 2002 – publications – press releases – at <w w w.m obile-culture.org> 10 Freim ut Duve and Achim Koch (eds.), Balkan: Die Jugend nach dem Krieg (Vienna: Folio, 2002), 37 ff.

11 O nly the bilingual new spaper Future M agazine from Mitrovica covered its printing costs from over sources like assistance from the Soros Foundation.

12 Mostar, Banja Luka, Skopje, Brcko 13 Am erican Jew ish Joint Distribution Com m ittee 14 Booklet Defence of our Future – mobile.culture.container 2003 88

MO BILE. CULTURE. CO NTAINER

Freim ut Duve In D efence o f o ur Future?

I. It lingers som ew here, in the m ind, in hearts – the violence children have experienced. The direct violence of people and the indirect violence caused by bom bs and w ar. O ften, both m erge together.

Violence in m any form s, from all sides. O ld people today, w ho as children experienced state violence – a father taken aw ay for organizing resistance against Hitler – this violence arose from their ow n State. O r the violence of invading soldiers – w ithout this m illions w ould not have fled and been driven aw ay; or the violence from the sky as the people of New York experienced on 11 Septem ber, this violence rained dow n on m y city, Ham burg, in 1943. Where yesterday evening there had been houses, in the m orning there w ere piles of rubble, beneath w hich those w ho had sought refuge in cellars had been buried to death. A w hole generation of children had experienced this like I did: in Ham burg, in Ludw igshafen, in Dresden and m any other bom bed cities.

For m any years I have been aw are that you can never get such scenes of violence out of your m ind, even if I had buried them deep dow n – som ew here in the layers of m em ory about m y life.

In 1945 w e had great opportunities for our future. The m ental baggage that refugees, bom bed-out persons, or resisters lugged around w as perhaps one of the unexpected instrum ents that w e – w e children w ho had been affected by violence – used to shape our ow n future.

In Defence of the Future – I thought of this alogical phrase one day many years ago in Guatemala. There had been massacres of FREIMUT D UVE

89

Mayas and thousands of young people had been w itnesses and victim s. A dedicated Guatem alan told m e about it w hile m any w om en w ere dem onstrating in the capital against the violence of the state and the violence of terror groups. They w anted to protect their children, w anted to defend their future.

II. This prom pted m e to ask very different authors, first of all from the Balkans and then from the Caucasus, to w rite texts tackling the question: In Defence of the Future?

Bosnians, Serbians, Croatians: Stop w riting just about the past of the w ar and the atrocities of the others, w rite about w hat your older generation is contributing to defend the future of your children. The texts in both volum es show how difficult this question w as for the older generation of authors w ho w ere already know n.

In the Caucasus one text stood out, w ritten by a Chechen teacher. He had fled w ith his pupils to Ingushetia and he knew that despite all the experienced horrors, the crux w as the future of his pupils. I then invited him to Moscow to the book presentation. He m ade a stirring speech that also m oved the Russian listeners.

Both volum es w ere political successes – especially the one on the Caucasus. We presented this in Moscow and also in Tbilisi (Georgia). Chechen, Russian and Azeri authors had been prepared to contribute to this book, to be published in the sam e volum e in order to defend the future. It w as perhaps the first tim e for centuries that Russian and Chechen authors had been published together.1 III. But all of these authors w ere older w riters. How then w ould approaching young people succeed, w ho as children had experienced violence and organized hatred and terrorizing of “the others” and now lugged this around in their m inds?

90

IN D EFENCE O F O UR FUTURE?

The idea of a travelling secondary school em erged – mobile. culture. container – that travelled through w ar-w orn cities in Bosnia, in Croatia, in Serbia and then also in Kosovo and invited young people from the schools there to take part in discussion groups together.

For alm ost three years this travelling secondary school has been touring the cities. Thousands have taken part in the discussions; the statem ents of hundreds have been recorded.

Achim Koch, m anaging director of the project, has approached young people from all of the visited cities and questioned them intensively a second tim e. The texts reveal w hat significance their memories of violence holds for them and how they handle the present differently to their parents’ generation. And in some of the texts the often catalytic effect of the statem ent “In Defence of our Future” em erges w ith unexpected clarity. In the w ords of seventeen-year-old Arm en in conversation w ith Achim Koch: “Your main theme ‘In Defence of our Future’ hit the nail on the head. We noticed this during our discussions with you and our work together. Because for us it revolved around that and nothing else when, for the first time, we had the chance to be together again.”

From the texts and the many meetings three things are apparent: •

The alleged, and also in the Western m edia recurrently cited, ethnic hatred “for generations” does not apply to the young people. Appalled that their long-standing acquaintances no longer spoke to them , they repeatedly sought out their one com m on point: w hat is our future?

•

The deep im pact of violence experienced by the young people has stuck in various w ays in their m inds and hearts.

•

Despite all efforts geared tow ards the future, the w ish is grow ing, especially w ith intellectual young people, to leave FREIMUT D UVE

91

their hom e country and to em igrate abroad to the West, if there is not hope on the horizon soon, also in term s of a shared European future.

IV. This project w ith young people has taught us that no region in Europe is perm anently, once and for all im m une from violence that can ensue again and again from engineered ethnic hatred.

Northern Ireland is still not really at peace; people are still killed and injured in the Basque Provinces. No European country is today and for all tim e “hom ogeneous”.

Young people in the Balkans w ere able to recognize that the concept of citizenship in their city, in their State, transcends their parents’ religious affiliation. They know that w ithout this sense of com m unity am ong citizens there w ill be no peaceful future.

1 Freim ut D uve, Nen ad Popovic, In Defence of the Future, S earching in the M inefield (Vien n a, 2000).

Freim ut Duve, Heidi Tagliavini, Kaukasus - Verteidigung der Z ukunft (Vienna, 2001).

92

IN D EFENCE O F O UR FUTURE?

Besnik, age 17, Mitrovica … Gro w ing O ld Yo ung

Before the w ar, I w as under the illusion that som ehow things w ould get better. We had know n for a long tim e that a w ar w ould com e. Personally, I had noticed it very early on, years before the w ar in Kosovo, w hen I w as only a young boy. I could feel the problem s that I had building up over the years.

You could say that they grew w ith m e.

We lived in Zvecan, to the north of Mitrovica. Four or five houses belonged to Albanians. But the rest of the people w ho lived there w ere Serbians. When I w as seven years old – that w as in 1992 – m y father, w ho w as a driver for the largest factory in our area, lost his job. He w as told that there w ouldn’t be any m ore w ork for Albanians. It w as like that for lots of people. He w ent to Germ any. O riginally, he only w anted to stay for three or four m onths, but the m onths turned into years because at hom e the situation w as getting w orse and w orse, and there w as still no w ork for him .

At that tim e, I already had the constant feeling that I w as hated in our village. O ther kids said to m e: You’re Albanian.

You are terrorists. You left Albania to come to our country. I didn’t understand at all, as I just w anted to play w ith them , but they didn’t let m e. They called m e a gypsy and said: O ne day, you will all be killed. That’s w hat kids and grow n-ups said to m e.

Along w ith som e Albanian kids, there w as one Serbian boy w ho w as a bit different. He w ould greet m e and spoke totally norm ally w ith m e. We both had a video gam e, and w e used to sw ap cassettes. His parents thought a bit differently to other parents.

Apart from that though, the years just got w orse. When I w ent along the street, people stared at m e and shouted abuse.

BESNIK, AGE 17, M ITRO VICA

93

I w as being increasingly provoked. Som e people started m aking a hand gesture to m e, as if their head w as being cut off. I also got the three finger sign. It’s a Serbian sign, and I had no idea w hat it m eant.

I w as very afraid. My fear grew w ith m y problem s. It became routine for me to live like that. There w ere some streets w here I knew that it w ould be better not to go along them . So I avoided them .

O ne day, during the w ar in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the police stopped m e on the street and asked m e about m y father.

I explained to them that he w as in Germ any, w orking. N o, no, they said, he’s in Bosnia, and is fighting there against us Serbians, go on, admit it! I didn’t understand w hat they m eant, I w as still m uch too young.

Slow ly, I started to realize that I w asn’t living in any norm ality. For exam ple, on the w ay to school, four older boys grabbed m e by the arm s and legs. They said to m e: N ow we’ll make an orthodox out of you, and w ith their fists they thum ped the shape of a cross on m y body w hilst reciting a religious text.

Again, it w as som ething I couldn’t understand.

O nce, w hen I w anted to buy chew ing gum , the shopkeeper asked m e: Are you for Rugova or Drascovic? I am for Drascovic, because he will make sure that you will get your heads cut off.

Then he took out a large knife.

I had to be really careful w here I spent m y tim e. In the school bus, I couldn’t really avoid being provoked. The kids w ould call after m e: UCK! There are a lot of things that happened that I haven’t told m y fam ily about. My m other has enough problem s of her ow n, and m y father too. In the tim e before the w ar, I grew old w hilst still being young, if you know w hat I m ean by that. I had to cope w ith it by m yself. I took the situation into m y ow n hands, and thought a lot about how I could deal w ith it.

That w as routine for m e.

94

… G RO WING O LD YO UNG

There w as one thing w hich happened that I couldn’t conceal. I w as going along a street near our house in Zvecan w ith three Albanian boys. Suddenly, som e m en, around 40 years old, cam e out of a bar, grabbed m e and carried m e back into the bar w ith them . My friends ran off. These m en w eren’t drunk, but they kept m aking fun of m e for being afraid. Then they opened a big refrigerator, w here the drinks are kept cool, shoved m e inside and closed the lid. They w anted to see how long it took for an Albanian to freeze. I scream ed and cried, and soon they lifted up the lid, laughing. They only w anted to scare m e. My m other turned up, as m y friends had gone to tell her w hat had happened. I w ent hom e crying.

Then the w ar started. I saw the first pictures on TV. We fled from Zvecan, left our house, and during the follow ing w eeks w e som etim es slept in the w oods.

At that tim e, w e still had hope. We hoped that there w ould soon be peace. Now it’s all different. People have becom e different. There is no help, no m utual support, and a lot of corruption. Everyone looks out for them selves.

O nly nature gives m e hope. You can see that som ething grow s, that som ething new develops.

BESNIK, AGE 17, M ITRO VICA

95

Sevji, age 16, Bitola As If No thing Had Ever Happened

Yes, that’s w hat it w as like w hen I cam e back – as if nothing had ever happened. It w as in August 2001. Exactly one year before you cam e to Bitola w ith mobile.culture.container.

I w asn’t afraid w hen I returned, but only because I’d had a letter from m y friends in w hich they’d w ritten that I should com e back soon and that everything w as just great in Bitola.

When I w as back in the city they w ere all over the m oon and asked m e w here on earth I’d been: W hy did you go to Turkey?

W hat was it like there? My relatives in Turkey had also m ade m e feel m ore as if I w as on holiday. Yet it w as actually com pletely different.

It began even before the sum m er. When the w ar started on the border to Kosovo I gradually noticed that friends on the street looked at m e in a different w ay from before. My m other told m e that I shouldn’t go onto the streets alone any m ore.

But nothing happened to m e. My brother, w ho is three years younger than m e, cam e hom e in tears a few tim es because he’d been sw orn at w ith w ords like: Shove off from here, you Albanian!

But w e’re actually not Albanians. My father is Turkish and m y m other’s Albanian. My father’s fam ily have lived in Bitola for a long tim e. If som ebody asks m e w here I’m from , then I alw ays say I’m Macedonian, because I w as born here.

I hardly ever w atched the new s about the w ar at that tim e because it alw ays m ade m e sad. My parents obviously didn’t w ant to talk about it in front of us children either. It w as only w hen neighbours cam e to visit that I could listen in w hen there w as talk of the w ar.

SEVJI, AGE 16, BITO LA

97

Then it w as 6 July 2001. I had been to school and w anted to prepare for a party in the park w ith m y friend Elena. It w as her birthday that day, and I’d turned 15 just tw o w eeks ago. But m y m other told m e: Don’t go outside today. Something terrible could happen in Bitola. So I phoned Elena and she also told m e that her m other had said som ething sim ilar. In the evening m y parents packed their suitcases and told m e to do the sam e.

The m ost im portant things that I packed on that evening w ere a few clothes, m y diary, photograph album s and m y teddy. I felt really aw ful because I’d never been through anything like that. I couldn’t sleep properly either. But I w as also curious in a w ay about w hat w as going to happen.

My parents seem ed to know. O ther people in the city had planned som ething. O n the street you’d heard w ords like: It’s going to start this evening! This evening we’re going to do it!

My parents phoned m y uncle w ho w as outside the city and he invited us to his house. He said that it w as safe because there w ere police there. Then from our balcony m y m other saw the first houses burning in Bitola. Relatives from m y uncle’s fam ily cam e and reported that m y uncle’s house w as also burning. He had disappeared, had been taken aw ay. We im m ediately got into a car and left for Turkey w here w e stayed for one and a half m onths.

Fortunately our house w asn’t burned dow n. My grandpa, m y father’s father, w as a very recognized consul in Bitola. Perhaps that’s w hy our house w as spared. But w e also heard later that the arsonists had com e into our street several tim es, but our neighbours had stood up to them .

Later it w as said that nothing happened to the people w ho had system atically set fire to so m any Albanians’ houses.

Apparently politicians had even asked them to do this. They are supposed to have had a list of houses w hich they should set fire to w ith them . Their aim had been to drive all people w ho w ere not Macedonians aw ay from Bitola. All this also 98

AS IF N O THING H AD EVER H APPENED

happened in Prilep. Before, Macedonian policem en had been shot on the border to Kosovo. It w as a type of revenge. The day w hen the houses w ere set alight w as like a national day of m ourning.

When I w as back in Bitola, nobody talked about this any m ore. Perhaps people had spoken about it a lot in the w eeks w hen w e w ere in Turkey. I don’t know. You can still see som e of the burnt houses. My friends said to m e: Come on, let’s go out now and meet up with her or him. And that w as w hat happened. It all seem ed norm al. How ever, a few of m y parents’ friends kept their distance from them , as if m y parents had done som ething w rong. When you cam e to Bitola w ith mobile.culture.container I w as able to talk about everything in detail for the first time. You film ed som e of it. That w as very im portant for m e. By talking about it I’ve been able to rid m yself of it all. Through talking I first found out w hat had actually happened to m e. Since then I’ve m anaged to get over it.

And do you know that since the day w hen I packed m y case to travel to Turkey, I’ve not w ritten my diary? I don’t really know w hy.

SEVJI, AGE 16, BITO LA

99

III. O ur Wo rk â&#x20AC;&#x201C; What We Think, Why It Matters Personal Reflections by Staff Members

Jutta Wolke The Caffeine Facto r: New s fro m the Co ffee Ho use Alexander Ivanko Hate Speech: To Pro secute o r no t to Pro secute, that is the Q uestio n Christiane Hardy Investigative, Underco ver and Embedded Jo urnalism Hanna Vuokko The Transfo rmatio n o r Ho mage to Kafka Ana Karlsreiter The Value o f $20,000 Christian Moeller First Amendment Freedo m Fighters Andrei Kalikh The Eye o f the Sto rm

Jutta Wolke The Caffeine Facto r: New s fro m the Co ffee Ho use

It w as in Istanbul in the late 1980s that I first becam e acquainted w ith the institution of the coffee house. It w as not a friendly acquaintance. I could not detect m uch conducive to public opinion building in them . Turkish coffee houses seem ed to m e dark and uninviting holes w here m en of all ages, and m en only, w ould guard their dull secrets nobody cared to share anyw ay, in clouds of sm oke they produced by lighting w aterpipes w ith pieces of glow ing coal, to w hich other ill sm elling com bustibles w ere added. Sexist and atavistic they w ere â&#x20AC;&#x201C; that w as m y clear im pression. O nly later, w hen I had the opportunity to take a look at the history of the O ttom an Em pire, did I find out that m y evaluation w as a result of looking at them backw ards. If instead you stepped further back and looked forw ard from there, coffee houses seem ed to have been the bearers of pluralistic and even dem ocratic potential. At least the Sultan seem ed to think so.

At the beginning of the sixteenth century, coffee and tobacco w ere a very popular luxury in Istanbul. How ever, they soon becam e a forbidden pleasure. At the beginning of the seventeenth century, Sultan Murat IV prohibited tobacco and coffee and closed dow n all coffee houses. He thus m eant to prevent assem blies that m ight lead to conspiracies or plots against him . He is said to have m ade sure that his prohibition w as adhered to by clim bing up incognito on the roofs of the buildings in the old part of Istanbul. He w ould sniff at the chim neys to gain personal evidence of w hether som eone w as sm oking or even brew ing som e coffee. Whoever he caught had to face the JUTTA W O LKE

103

death penalty. The Sultan is said not to have stopped at holding drum head court-m artial in the m iddle of the night.

In Istanbul, the public dread of the persecution of coffee houses continued to persist until the beginning of the nineteenth century, w hen m any coffee houses w ere still disguised as hairdressers. In recent years m any coffee houses have becom e gam bling halls 1 – not so m uch a disguise any m ore, but an indication of the prevalence of business considerations.

When you live in Vienna, you get the im pression that it is the cradle of the coffee house. There is even a m onum ent to the alleged founder of the Vienna coffee house, Georg Franz Kolschitzky, of Polish descent, in Vienna’s fourth district. The story you hear in Vienna is that after their siege in 1683, the fleeing Turkish besiegers left behind 500 bags of green coffee beans, w hich ended up as Kolschitzky’s property. He knew all about them, having lived in the Balkans for a long time and being fluent in Turkish. During the siege he had w orked as a spy for the Austrians, and part of his remuneration w as those 500 bags of coffee beans and the im perial privilege to brew coffee. He opened three coffee houses and the last of them w as the famous Blue Bottle in Schlossergasse. Nice story that; unfortunately it cannot be proven.2 Some claim that Kolschitzky, a merchant and spy, never had anything to do w ith coffee, that it is more probable that coffee entered Europe via Italy, w here Venice had coffee houses since 1645, and via England, w here the first w ere opened in 1652. In Hamburg, the first coffee house opened in 1671, in Paris the Café Procope w as opened in 1672. In Vienna, it w as Johannes Diodato w ho opened the first one in 1685. The Blue Bottle only opened in 1703, ten years after the death of Kolschitzky.3 The Vienna coffee house became w orld famous at the turn of the nineteenth to the tw entieth century and in the period betw een the tw o w orld w ars, w hen it became the meeting place of artists, journalists, and w riters w ho as a result of the 104

N EWS FRO M

THE C O FFEE H O USE

First World War had faced the total collapse of everything in w hich they had believed.4 By then, the potential for free expression had developed in coffee houses elsew here.

In seventeenth-century France, le public consisted of the royal court: lecturers, spectators and the audience w ere recipients and critics of art and literature. It w as only w hen Phillip of O rléans m oved the royal residence from Versailles to Paris, that the court lost its central function as the public. All of the great w riters of the eighteenth century w ould first present their m ost im portant ideas in a discours, a lecture to an academ y or to a salon. The salon held the m onopoly of a first edition: a new w ork had to be legitim ized there.

In Germ any at that tim e there w as no city w hich could offer a civil institution to replace the public w hich the courts had provided. Elem ents not dissim ilar to the salons appeared in educated “dinner societies”. As in coffee houses, their custom ers com prised private people of all professions and classes, and a high num ber of academ ically trained intellectuals. Citizens from all w alks of life m et w ith m em bers of the socially accepted, yet politically uninfluential, aristocracy in so-called “Germ an Societies”. They w ere secret societies; the absolutist state did not perm it open political equality.

For the Stuarts in England, literature and arts served to represent the king. After the reign of Charles II, the court cam e to be the residence of a royal fam ily that lived a m ore or less secluded life. The increased im portance of civil society w as consolidated by the new institutions of the public – the coffee houses in their heyday betw een 1680 and 1730. The salons in France, the societies in Germ any and the coffee houses in England w ere centres of w hat w as first literary criticism , and later also political criticism . A parity of the educated from both aristocracy and the m iddle class began to develop.

In the first decade of the eighteenth century, London already had som e 3,000 coffee houses, each of w hich had an JUTTA W O LKE

105

inner circle of regular custom ers. At the Rota Club, w hich w as under the chairm anship of an assistant of Milton’s, Marvell and Pepys m et w ith Harrington, w ho supposedly presented the republican ideas of his O ceana there. Dryden could be found debating in a circle of young w riters at Will’s. Addison and Steele held their senates som e tim e later at Button’s. In the coffee houses, intelligentsia m et w ith aristocracy, w hich represented landed and m oneyed interests. That is probably w hy in London the debates soon w ent beyond art and literature to include econom ic and political topics.

The coffee house offered casual access to influential groups. They included broader circles of the m iddle classes, and even artisans and shopkeepers. Every profession, every party had their favourite coffee house. A few establishm ents doubled as business m arts or auction halls, others w ere used as post offices or gam bling parlours; they w ere the birthplaces of m odern new spapers and typical eighteenth-century periodicals such as the Tatler and the Spectator; and the hom e of fam ous insurance and trade com panies.5 The m oral w eeklies in London w ere a direct part of the coffee house discussions. When Steele and Addison published the first issue of the Tatler in 1709, coffee houses w ere so num erous that the coherence of these m any circles could only be provided by a paper. At the sam e tim e, the new paper w as so closely interw oven w ith the coffee house life that that life could be reconstructed from the paper’s individual issues. The papers’ articles w ere not only the object of discussion but also a part of the debate. Letters to the editor becam e an institution of their ow n: a lion’s head w as m ounted on the w est side of Button’s coffee house through w hose m outh the readers dropped their letters.

While dinner societies, salons and coffee houses in Germ any, France and England m ay have been very different from one another, they had one thing in com m on: they organized 106

N EWS FRO M

THE C O FFEE H O USE

a perm an en t discussion betw een private person s w h ich developed into a public opinion. They did not require equality of status; they took no account of it. The real authority w as that of reasoning. Reasoning held its ground against the social hierarchy on the basis of the parity of hum an beings.

Les hommes, private gentlem en, private persons w ere the public. Pow er and status of public offices w ere invalid, econom ic dependencies could not be enforced. Law s of the m arket w ere suspended, as w ere law s of the state. It therefore com es as no surprise that those w ho held political pow er saw coffee houses as breeding places of unrest. “Men have assum ed to them selves a liberty, not onely [sic] in coffeehouses, but in other places and m eetings, both public and private, to censure and defam e the proceedings of State, by speaking evil of things they understand not, and endeavouring to create and nourish an universal jealousie and dissatisfaction in the m inds of all His Majesties good subjects.”6 Charles II issued in 1675 a proclam ation ordering the closure of all coffee houses because “divers false, m alitious and scandalous reports are devised and spread abroad to the Defam ation of his Majestie’s Governm ent, and to the Disturbance of the Peace and Q uiet of the Realm ”. The resulting public outcry forced the King to rescind his proclam ation w ithin less than tw o w eeks. In 1688, King Jam es II decreed that all coffee houses and other public houses that displayed new sletters or any new spapers, dom estic or foreign, should be suppressed. The order rem ained in effect, but seem s not to have been enforced, as coffee house life continued unabated. 7 Yet the press fought against som e serious restrictions. In 1695 the Licensing Act abolished pre-censorship, but the Q ueen repeatedly dem anded that censorship be reintroduced – in vain. How ever, the press continued to be subject to the strict Law of Libel and to restrictions as a result of num erous privileges of the crow n and parliam ent.

JUTTA W O LKE

107

The leading press of those days w as never in the hands of the opposition. O nly w ith George I and the long-lasting rule of Whigs did the Tories under Bolingbroke create an independent journalism . This succeeded in standing its ground against the Governm ent and m ade critical com m ents on the Governm ent and public opposition against it the norm . This w as the beginning of the press as the fourth estate. From then on, the degree of the developm ent of public opinion w as m easured by the degree of confrontation betw een the state and the press. The “Letters of Junius”, w hich appeared betw een 1768 and 1772 in the London Public Advertiser, a kind of forerunner of the political editorial com m ent, m arked this degree of confrontation very clearly and perceptibly.

In Vienna, the coffee house had its heyday approxim ately 200 years after its counterpart in London.8 The reasons m ust be seen in the continuous control of public life through the police.

The first third of the nineteenth century in Vienna w as a time of intellectual oppression. Chancellor Clem ens von Metternich tried to suffocate every kind of civil disobedience or resistance by means of a police state. The secret police used to post “confidants” in coffee houses to spy on potential rebels. How ever, they w ere soon know n to the coffee house regulars and w ere often publicly denounced. This uncovering w as illegal and punishable, but the penalties w ere not alw ays enforced.

In 1844, Heinrich Griensteidl, a pharm acist by training, opened a sm all café w hich relocated in 1847 to the Herbersteinsches Palais at the beginning of Herrengasse near the Hofburg. Its regular custom ers w ere literary figures and stubborn political idealists. If you believe a classic Vienna on dit, the 1848 revolution w as started because of freedom of speech in Vienna coffee houses. It had not been granted; therefore it w as sim ply seized, and that im m ediately sparked off the revolution. O ne of its centres w as know n to be the Café Griensteidl in the Herrengasse. When it had to be renovated, everybody m oved to 108

N EWS FRO M

THE C O FFEE H O USE

the Café Central a few m etres dow n the street. It attracted not only literary figures, but also politicians: Russian socialists, Polish parliam entarians, Ukrainian Irredentists, Czech autonom ists, Slovenian students; in the w ords of an observer, “the k.u.k. [im perial and royal] high treason”. This finally erupted – first into the shootings in Sarajevo, then into the First World War. Karl Kraus, the first w riter to m ake the Café Central his second hom e, docum ented this in his scenes of Die letzten Tage der M enschheit (The Last Days of M ankind), w hich to a large part take place in a coffee house, or in front of one.

Another Vienna legend says that tow ards the end of that w ar, a high official cam e rushing into the office of the Austrian Foreign Minister, shouting: “Your Excellency, I am sorry. There is a revolution in Russia.” The Minister responded: “Go aw ay!

Who w ould m ake a revolution in Russia? Maybe Mr. Trotzki of the Café Central?”, and he laughed.9 If m any feared the coffee houses as cells of revolutionary activity spurred by freedom of speech, an insider m aintains the contrary. Milan Dubrovic, a coffee house regular him self, says that at least for the period betw een the tw o w orld w ars, journalists and intellectuals spent tim e in the coffee houses to practice and train their intellectual capacities for their ow n sake, but never tested them in real life. What these people had in com m on w as their cosm opolitan m ind. He sees their critical distance from day-to-day politics as presum ptuous. It collapsed and led to a state of speechless destitution w hich ended up in resigned pow erlessness w hen the catastrophe actually happened. Karl Kraus is supposed to have said: “With regard to Hitler m y m ind is blank.”

Dubrovic reports the sam e com plaints about futility, disintegration of values, and cultural pessim ism all over Europe: in the Rom an Café or the Café Größ enw ahn in Berlin, in the Dôm e or Café Flore in Paris, in the Continental or the Arco in Prague, in the Abbrazia in Budapest or in the O deon in Zurich.

JUTTA W O LKE

109

Dubrovic is very critical of the term “the Golden Tw enties” w hich have been attributed a rom antic aureole. The creative im petus, the new ideas that cam e sparkling forth in all areas of thought, arts and sciences, w hile adm irable, have to be seen against the dark background of the decay of the young civil rights era. The rise of Adolf Hitler sadly show s that the idealized interw ar era w as at the sam e tim e the incubation period for the second act of the European tragedy, the rule of a totalitarian regim e. 10 The tragic fate of the unforgettable Egon Friedell, fam ous Vienna w riter, historian, cabarettist, actor, and of course coffee house regular, exem plifies the consequences of that regim e for freedom of speech that had found its hom e in Vienna coffee houses. O n 16 March 1938, he jum ped to his death out of the w indow of his 3rd floor hom e in Gentzgasse to escape arrest by the Gestapo. “Watch out”, he shouted, as he fell, to a passer-by.

1 I ow e the inform ation for this part to a program m e by the Germ an public broadcaster ARD (Bayerischer Rundfunk) Skizzen aus dem O rient: Die Pforte der Glückseligkeit - das alte Istanbul.

2 cf. Sonja Fehrer, “Altenberg – Polgar – Friedell: Die Wiener Kaffeehausliteratur der Jahrhundertw ende”, Diplom arbeit zur Erlangung des Magistergrades (Vienna, 1992), 11.

3 Rolf Schneider, “Geselligkeit”, Leben in Wien (Munich and Vienna: Carl Hanser Verlag, 1994), 39.

4 As Stefan Zw eig very im pressively describes it in his autobiography Die Welt von Gestern: Erinnerungen eines Europäers, first published by Berm annFischer, Stockholm , 1944.

5 Astrid Pintar, “The English Coffee House as a Cultural Institution and Its Reflection in Literature”, Diplom arbeit zur Erlangung des Magistergrades (Vienna, 1993), 2.

6 Q uoted by Em den in The People and the Constitution (O xford, 1956), 33.

7 Pintar 34 and 76 8 cf. Pintar 2.

9 cf. Schneider 44 ff.

10 Milan Dubrovic, Veruntreute Geschichte: Die Wiener Salons und Literatencafés, Berlin: Aufbau Taschenbuch Verlag, 2001 110

N EWS FRO M

THE C O FFEE H O USE

Alexander Ivanko Hate Speech: To Pro secute o r no t to Pro secute, that is the Q uestio n

Have you ever thought, dear reader, w hat freedom of expression really m eans? Yes, you, w ho else could I be talking to?

And this is not about shouting m atches in sm oky bars and gossiping around the cooler or over a cigarette. Hey, w e all exercise our basic freedom w hen the boss is concerned and not listening in. The nam es w e call him (it is usually “him ”, w e tend to be m ore forgiving if it is a “her”), the evil pow ers w e bestow on him .

But, really, for the record here, w hen else do you exercise your right to freedom of expression? Few of us w rite letters to the editor and even few er contribute m ore substantial articles to the m edia. If w e are in London w e don’t hang around Hyde Park to join the speakers queue or get invited to pontificate on television (unless, of course, w e carry a few generals’ stars on our shoulders).

It seem s th at freedom of expression is like a beautiful w om an : w ith m an y aroun d you ten d to n otice th em less an d less as th eir beauty seem s not so striking. Try com ing to Split or D ubrovn ik in Croatia, you w ill in stan tly un derstan d w h at I m ean . But en d up in a godforsaken place (I h ave been to a few m yself) w h ere fem ale beauty is rare an d you start ach in g for a pair of sm oulderin g eyes an d sh apely legs. Un less you live in an area th at h as been th rough a devastatin g w ar, eth n ic h atred, con cen tration cam ps an d all th e oth er “n iceties” associated w ith bloodsh ed based on bloodlin e. Th en your un derstan din g of freedom of expression is “m ildly” altered.

ALEXANDER IVANKO

111

I have know n Dardan for years. We w orked together in Bosnia; he w as w ith the O SCE, yours truly w ith the UN. Nice guy, top professional, gorgeous w ife. In 2000, he cam e over from Kosovo, his hom e, back to Vienna, his new hom e thanks (or “thanks” depending on your perspective) to life’s circum stances. He invited m e for a drink and w e ventured off to one of the m any pubs in Vienna. He had just got back from Pristina, and I assum ed it w as for a short break. How w rong I w as. The not so jubilant w elcom ing party for Dardan, the lost son back in Pristina, turned som e m onths later into a hate cam paign in the Albanian-language m edia. Dardan, w ho spent tim e in a Serbian jail, fighting for m any years for the rights of Kosovo Albanians, w as accused of being a Serbian agent, a traitor to his ow n people.

“These people, they don’t understand w hat dem ocracy is.

They are all com m unists from Hoxha’s tim es. If you don’t agree w ith them they im m ediately accuse you of being a traitor. It is not that easy standing up for your beliefs in that place,” Dardan blurted out furiously.

“You know, there com es a tim e w hen you just say – enough is enough. Do I really w ant the aggravation, do I really w ant to deal w ith the risks?”

After the local press started attacking him , accusing him of every possible crim e against the Kosovo Albanians, including paying 250,000 dollars to a Western journalist to publish articles slam m ing the Kosovo Liberation Arm y (even if he could com e up w ith this som ew hat grotesque idea, he neverever had anything close to a quarter of a m illion dollars), Dardan started noticing sinister things happening around him .

“Look, I’m sitting having a coffee in a street café in Pec w hen a black car w ith tinted w indow s stops in front of the café, the w indow s slow ly roll dow n and I end up staring at a shaved head in dark glasses. By the tim e the security officer assigned to m e m ade it to the table, they w ere gone.”

112

H ATE SPEECH

“Any ideas?”

“Sure, the usual KLA thugs. This tim e probably only sending m e a signal – big brother is w atching you, but how should I know ?” He tapped a new cigarette pack on the table, tore off the w rapper, took out a sm oke and started looking for a lighter.

The w aiter, a lovely Sw edish girl, brought him som e m atches.

He takes a few drags and the conversation continues.

“You know, I think Woodrow Wilson used to say that dem ocracy is not about a system , it’s about character. He’s right. These people from the hills, the boys in the dark glasses and the leather jackets, all hip, they have no clue. But they w anna run the place.”

Yeah, run the place. For the tim e being m any are content w ith running the m edia. And w hat do you do in a situation like this? The m edia ran out of tow n a friend of m ine, w ith no apparent consequences for their actions forthcom ing. And this is in Kosovo, an internationally adm inistered province.

Hate speech. The ultim ate dilem m a: to prosecute or not to prosecute? A never-ending discussion across the Atlantic.

Its proliferation in the m edia has contributed substantially to the level of viciousness exercised by w arring factions during the Yugoslav w ars. It encroached on everybody, turning yesterday’s w arm -hearted people into overnight butchers.

Alexander Kasatkin, Colonel of the Russian General Staff (ret.). In 1992 UN O perations O fficer in Sarajevo. He told m e about the follow ing episode in 1996 w hen w e w ere both w orking in Sarajevo.

“This happened at the end of April 1992. The w ar hadn’t really gained full steam . Shells w ere already flying in Sarajevo, but m ostly at night and during the early m orning hours. I rem em ber that day very w ell; it w as a beautiful Sunday, sunny and w arm . We w ere sitting in the office – m yself, a Brit and another officer, a quiet guy from France – w hen w e heard ALEXANDER IVANKO

113

som e racket outside, noise, shouting. Then a girl w as brought in; she m ust have been barely tw elve. Badly w ounded in the arm w ith a piece of shrapnel sticking out. We didn’t have a full-fledged doctor at HQ so w e had to take her to the hospital. The front lines w eren’t set in stone and the nearest facility w here she could be operated on w as in a Serb-dom inated area. The three of us grabbed a bunch of bullet-proof vests to cover the girl in the car and sped off to the hospital. The doctors, w hen they found out I w as a Russian, started running around, gave the girl local anaesthesia and w ere planning to take her to the operating room . O ne of the doctors, sm iling, asked the girl w hat her nam e w as. She answ ered. Suddenly I heard cursing, shouts, the doctor going red in the face. ‘You f—king Muslim , you little bitch! I’m gonna butcher you here, not operate!’ The girl w ent w hite. She w as a child, I didn’t care w hat nationality, ethnicity she w as. She needed m edical help and w e took her to a hospital fully expecting that it w ould be provided. Thankfully, since I could speak som e Serbian, I understood that w e w ere in trouble. The doctor continued: ‘I’m gonna cut your throat, you Muslim !’ I had to intervene. The little girl w as absolutely terrified. I explained to the doctor that I w as a senior Russian officer, this girl w as m y responsibility, and if he did not perform the operation I w as gonna set a bunch of dogs on his ass. I think that im pressed him . It took them over tw o hours but they got the shrapnel out. How ever, I stood the w hole operation next to the doctor.

Just to be sure that, by accident of course, instead of cutting open her arm he didn’t cut open her throat.”

“If you w eren’t around, w hat w ould have happened?”

Kasatkin sighed. “She probably w ould be dead. Thank God I understood Serbian and they had som e respect for a Russian officer… I hope she survived the w ar.”

That doctor m ust have been w atching a lot of Serbian television, because, I can tell you, if I had been living in Sarajevo 114

H ATE SPEECH

and w as being force-fed the crap I saw on Bosnian Serb Television, back then know n as SRT, w ithout any other alternative sources of inform ation, I w ould have becom e pretty intolerant m yself. Hey, w e’re all hum an. Who’s a superm an around here?

The 64,000 dollar question: do you ban this type of “new s”, scientifically referred to as “hate speech”? O r let it linger on the m argins of m ainstream m edia, debating its proponents rather than banning them altogether? Hate speech has been know n to turn reasonable hum an beings into despicable anim als.

Maybe that is a good enough reason to ban it? O r m aybe not?

This is the old US-Europe debate (w ell at least there w as one prior to 9-11) on how absolute freedom of expression is and w hether all speech should be constitutionally protected.

My friend Dardan takes the European view on this one. Com ing from Kosovo, it is difficult to accuse him of not being libertarian enough.

As a Russian w ho lived through som e tough censorship tim es in the Soviet Union, I tend to lean tow ards the Am erican First Am endm ent approach. Nevertheless, m y convictions w ere “slightly” shaken by the experiences of the m any conflicts in the Balkans w here I had a front row seat at som e of the m ore grotesque and brutal show s playing to the accom panim ent of the local m edia.

I arrived in Septem ber 1994 in Serb-controlled Grbavica on the outskirts of Sarajevo w ith a UNTV team to produce a short docum entary on the Russian battalion that w as deployed as part of the UN Protection Force. This w as m y third trip to the besieged capital and I already felt like a veteran. We w ere picked up by a Russian jeep and taken to HQ . A couple of classy scruffy “gentlem en”, w earing all the paraphernalia one is used to seeing on param ilitary “cleansers”, w ere talking to ALEXANDER IVANKO

115

som e Russian soldiers. My Russian instinct im m ediately signalled – there is a deal going on – som ething very soon w ill exchange hands w ith the help of a few Deutschm arks. I w as hoping it w asn’t going to be w eapons, just som e innocent booze or tobacco.

The commander, a mountain of a man as one expects a paratrooper to look, w elcomed us. The dealers quietly w ithdrew. We w ent upstairs to the commander’s office to discuss the filming. His secretary, speaking Russian w ith a heavy Balkan accent, brought coffee. A Bosnian Serb officer w alked in – his name w as Marco – introductions w ere made all around. His name rang a bell and his rank of colonel impressed. O nce the technical details w ere out of the w ay w e w ere invited to a dinner party at Sasha’s place. Sasha, w e w ere told, w as the local Serbian commander. A w eek later I w ould be hearing his snipers shooting w omen and children on the other side. But that w as a w eek later – often an eternity in the Balkans. Now I w as supposed to be a guest at a party a few hundred feet from the front line.

“Yes, Elena is in tow n, she w ants to m eet all the boys, so I thought, you guys w ill also enjoy the com pany” – w e w ere in no position to decline such a generous offer. I had m et Elena a few m onths ago. She w as introduced by a Russian diplom at as m y country’s top expert on Yugoslavia, has w ritten this and that, know s everybody and w as a good friend of General Mladic, the Bosnian Serb com m ander. No w onder “the boys” w anted to m eet her.

Sasha’s house w as a large tw o-storey villa, like any other in that region. Made of stone, room y, yet dark. Candles on the table, enorm ous am ounts of food: fresh vegetables, local cheeses, sm oked ham . Bottles of slivovic and w hisky com plem ented this extraordinary table-feast in the m iddle of the w ar.

O ne hell of a party during a m edieval-like ruckus.

Sasha starts telling m e about his fam ily, how he w orked in Sarajevo as an engineer and had to leave w hen the w ar started.

116

H ATE SPEECH

“You w ere forced out?”

“I didn’t w ant to take chances. Also m y people are here – not there. You know, every evening the Muslim s slaughter innocent Serb children and float their bodies dow n the Miljacka River. O ur television show s the pictures every night. At least w hen w e have electricity.”

“I w as there a couple of tim es and have never seen or heard anything like that.”

“They knew you w ere com ing and took a break,” Marko joins the conversation. Not a glim pse of irony on his face m ade even m ore sinister by the candlelight. Zilch. Dead seriousness.

I decided not to push m y luck and focus on the food.

Enter Elena.

“These Muslim s, they are terrible. Even w orse than the Croats. I talked to Mladic recently and he told m e w hat atrocities his troops com e across w hen they liberate a village – people slaughtered, bodies everyw here.”

When the nam e of the “great one” is m entioned everybody is all ears. Her w ords are m et w ith approving nods. It seem s there is a reason for this dinner – Elena is being presented w ith a special aw ard from the Sarajevo-Rom anja Corps – the one that shelled the city for over three years. The aw ard – a huge knife – is gallantly offered to Elena by Marko, w ho happens to be the Corps deputy com m ander for intelligence. Elena happily accepts the aw ard and blabbers: “This is great for slitting Muslim throats.” Everybody starts drinking joyously.

The UNTV team continues focusing on the food. Sasha, how ever, does not w ant to leave m e alone. He is fixated on Sarajevo, asks about this street and that, m entions a couple of friends but does not give me their names. In the end he sums up the conversation: “These Muslims, w e gotta kill them, kill them all, and take our city back!” Elena, tipsy on slivovic, agrees.

We call it a day after m idnight. Although “enjoying” the longest ceasefire since the w ar began in 1992, Sarajevo once in a w hile ALEXANDER IVANKO

117

is lit by gunfire. We are now on the hills overlooking the city – Sasha’s snipers are earning their m oney. The sporadic bursts from a nearby house rem ind m e that in a few days I w ill be on the receiving end of Sasha’s m en.

That w eek in Grbavica w as the first and last tim e that I spent m ore than a few hours on Bosnian Serb controlled territory. The place gives you the creeps: hostile glances at every corner, checking you out, m easuring you, trying to understand – w hose side are you on? And you have to be on som ebody’s side, no options here. “God forbid, if you are not one of us,” they seem to be telling you. I ran across a param ilitary, at least he w as w earing the gear, w ho looked like he just dropped dow n from the Far East. Later I found out that he w as a volunteer from Japan. O ther volunteers crossed m y path later. He w as the strangest one. They all hung out together and w hen they had electricity w ere all glued to SRT, the local Bosnian Serb TV station – the only one, actually. It w as like having a drink before going into battle: intoxicating, invigorating hate pushed you to kill.

Decem ber 1994, Sarajevo. General Sir Michael Rose, the British com m ander of UN troops in Bosnia, and his civilian adviser Victor Andreev, an old Russian UN hand and a top negotiator w ith the w arring parties, sum m oned m e (at that point I w as the senior UN Spokesm an in Bosnia) to the General’s office to discuss a proposal that they w ere floating around. They w anted to pass it by form er US President Jim m y Carter w ho w as planning to com e to Sarajevo around Christm as to try to arrange for a m ore perm anent ceasefire, som ething w e referred to as a “cessation of hostilities”.

“Alex, w hat do you think, w ill UN Headquarters in Zagreb agree to a proposal that w e w ould table at the ceasefire talks that w ould identify w ords and phrases that should not be used by the Serb and Muslim m edia?”

118

H ATE SPEECH

Victor started giving exam ples: “chetnik”, “balija”, “ustashe”, etc. All traditional derogatory term s referring to the three m ain ethnic groups that populate Bosnia. The horrified look on m y face gave aw ay m y First Am endm ent credentials. I started blabbering about the need to uphold freedom of expression, that as the UN w e could not afford to start giving advice to the m edia on how to report, even if the reporting is being done in a very biased m anner. Victor and the General did not look am used. They suggested that I forw ard their proposal to Zagreb. I called the Chief UN Spokesm an in form er Yugoslavia Michael William s, another Brit (he later w orked as a senior foreign affairs adviser in Blair’s Governm ent), and told him about Rose’s and Victor’s idea. Michael, not a big fan of the abrasive form er SAS officer w ho he saw as overly pro-Serb, hit the roof.

“Are they crazy? This is censorship. We can’t do that!”

In the end, a form er Soviet journalist turned conservative libertarian and a form er British BBC reporter, w ho in his youth w as sym pathetic to the com m unists, torpedoed this proposal and it w as never m entioned to Carter. Did w e do the right thing? Back then, I thought that w e w ere definitely in the right. Did the ceasefire brokered by President Carter last? It w as barely three m onths before the factions w ere again tearing each other apart. Would a code of conduct for journalists have helped at that point? Who know s, although I doubt it.

But the w orld again learned (for the um pteenth tim e) how m edia can infuriate an already violent citizenry.

In autum n 1997, I organized in Sarajevo a press conference by the Canadian judge Louise Arbour, back then Chief Prosecutor w ith the UN International Crim inal Tribunal for form er Yugoslavia (ICTY). For the first tim e w e insisted that SRT, local Serb television, show the press conference in its entirety w ith no editorial com m ents attached. We, as international officials in Bosnia and Herzegovina, w ere being intrusive, ALEXANDER IVANKO

119

even im perialistic but our position w as based on the belief that unless w e get SRT in line w e w ould never be able to break the pattern of ethnic hatred that had com pletely engulfed the Bosnian Serbs. SRT w as the m ain cheerleader for ethnic purity and intolerance.

Judge Arbour, a short and shy looking w om an w ho had a backbone m ade of titanium (she indicted Slobodan Milosevic), did a brilliant job in explaining the role of the ICTY, its colourblindness, its focus on the organizers of crim es rather than the rank-and-file perpetrators. The press conference w as recorded and a tape then provided to SRT for broadcasting. What I saw that evening on SRT w as “slightly” different from w hat they had been provided w ith. I w as absolutely flabbergasted: SRT had crudely edited the tape adding editorial com m ent left and right, som e of it very hateful of both the Bosnian Muslim s and the Croats.

The next m orning at the regular press conference I w ent through the roof, accusing SRT of every possible crim e in the book and dem anding that the TV channel rebroadcast the press conference in full as w as agreed beforehand. My statement w as quoted by alm ost every m edia outlet in the US and in Europe.

You w ill never guess w hat happened next.

Five SRT transm itters w ere taken over by NATO troops and the TV channel w as sw itched off the air. O ne of the international Deputy High Representatives, w ho ran Bosnia, also happened to be a senior Russian diplom at. He called m e the next day: “Alexander, are you crazy? Krajisnik (back then Serbian m em ber of the BH Presidency, currently a detainee at The Hague Tribunal-A.I.) is gonna string you up by the b—ls. You just closed dow n their m ain television channel!”

General Wesley Clark, at that point NATO Com m ander (referred to as SACEUR), decided to use m y statem ent as a pretext to once and for all clam p dow n on Bosnian Serb anti120

H ATE SPEECH

NATO , often hateful and intolerant speech. SRT w as off, gone, goodbye. I w as w arned to stay aw ay from Bosnian Serb controlled territory for the foreseeable future.

This w as the first tim e in recent m em ory w hen a m ajor m edia outlet w as closed dow n by international forces for prom oting ethnic intolerance and underm ining the security of these forces. Hate speech in the region w as dealt a m ajor blow, and few now dared to venture into this dangerous territory m indful of the fate of SRT. In the end, the m edia scene in Bosnia and Herzegovina started resem bling som ething close to a reasonable one, w ith heated debates in the m edia, tough questions being asked, but little if any hate speech present in these discussions across ethnic lines.

The m oral of this story: close dow n the bastards as soon as you get a chance. I guess, one can call this phenom enon m edia im perialism at its finest. Maybe, back in 1994, I should have agreed to Victor Andreev’s and General Rose’s proposal on a code of conduct?

In a situation of w ar it is not alw ays easy to balance your ow n libertarian convictions w ith the harsh and grotesque reality of blood and guts spilling around you. It is even m ore difficult in a post-conflict situation, w here death is no longer a variable and you often ponder: is there really a need to restrict speech? I don’t know. I have not com e up w ith an answ er m yself.

But I do know that as a result of hate speech a friend of m ine had to flee his hom e tow n and another one levelled a gun on a doctor to m ake sure he operated properly on a little girl. Not to m ention Elena and her Bosnian Serb friends w hose brains w ere fried to the point w here they only saw the “Muslim s” as killers w ho had to be killed them selves first.

ALEXANDER IVANKO

121

Christiane Hardy Investigative, Undercover & Embedded Journalism Sense, Sensibility and Non-Sense

Embedded. At the beginning of the “War on Iraq” a new journalistic concept w as introduced: em bedded journalism . Journalists w ere to be invited to be part of the invading m ilitary forces. They w ould be given the opportunity to be there in the thick of the action! Nothing w ould escape the eye, nothing w as to be hidden, the account w ould be first-hand.

Thus, w ith the introduction of the term embedded journalism, the suggestion of objectivity and the notion that something new had happened w as conveyed.

How enchantingly delusionary; being so close to the subject, the chances are that one only “sees” the few square metres of sand in front. O ne sees the bullet being shot or the mortar fired, but not w here it lands or w hat it causes; one only sees a w isp of smoke in the desert. What one sees is not necessarily w hat is taking place. The first time w hen journalists got so close to the combat zone in the first Iraq War and Desert Storm, the public described the event as “w atching a video game”.

What does such an im age convey? Are w e better inform ed about the w ar after seeing these im ages? What is happening at the sam e m om ent in the countries surrounding the battlefield?

What are the im plications, reactions, repercussions?

War correspondence requires a broad outlook, w hich m eans being w ell inform ed of the actions and intentions on both sides and not voluntarily choosing a narrow ed perspective. I think that “em bedded” in your room at hom e, given there is a com puter and an Internet connection, you can get a better and a m ore com plete view of the w ar in Iraq than w hen you are em bedded in the invading troops.

C HRISTIANE H ARDY

123

Concepts as Marketing Tools. Looking at this from a linguistic angle, it seem s interesting that a concept like em bedded journalism is introduced w ith so m uch aplom b. A new concept that com es into our lives charged w ith m eaning and is suddenly used so frequently should raise doubts about the intentions behind it. Concepts are introduced to us as new brands, m arketed into our languages. We are bom barded w ith new w ords w hich are loaded w ith this new vocabulary of w ar, yet at the sam e tim e obscure its m eaning: Soft Target, Friendly Fire, Unreasonable Violence, The War on Terror.

Rules and Regulations. Being em bedded brings rules w ith it that have to be follow ed. They seem fairly logical in the given situation, but could be contrary to the basics of free journalism .

Do not give coordinates, som e actions of the soldiers cannot be reported, the com m ander can request a blackout anytim e (i.e. no com m unication via satellite because positions can be given aw ay), sign a contract, no new s on classified w eapons or future operations and censorship m ight be im posed. It can be argued that a situation in w hich reporting is subject to conditions does not exactly serve truth and freedom of press.

Being an em bedded journalist in the m iddle of com bat, it m ust be seductive to start thinking in term s of “w e” or “our” instead of “they”. Extrem e fear is an experience w hich shapes and m oulds the ability to discern, and this could result in extrem e bonding w ith the troops. Situations could occur in w hich you could speak of an em bedded syndrom e, loosely based on the Stockholm syndrom e: being too close to the subject or ideology to m aintain an unbiased judgem ent.

O ld Wine in New Bags. “Em bedded journalism ” is not a new phenom enon. During World War II m any journalists w ere in the service of the arm y, or em bedded in it. There w ere num erous journalists w ho invaded Norm andy alongside the soldiers 124

INVESTIGATIVE, U NDERCO VER & EMBEDDED JO URNALISM

and died w ith them on the shores of northern France. Writers accredited by the US War Departm ent w ere stationed in Paris, staying at Hotel St. Germ ain des Prés on the Left Bank (36, rue Bonaparte – it is still there), w ho w ere m uch m ore “em bedded” in the daily and cultural life. O ffering astonishingly rich insights into life before and during the w ar, Janet Flanner w as one of those journalists, and w as w riting for the New Yorker. At least one photo exists w here w e see her in a US arm y uniform . She started w riting articles for the New Yorker in 1925 w hich resulted in her fam ous Letters from Paris w hich she w rote till 1974.

Her voice is at its clearest w hen foreseeing m uch of the horror that the Nazi’s w ould bring and observing the European political situation that proved to be a breeding ground for m uch that w as to com e. Controversial and as m uch hailed as criticized is Flanner’s portrait of Hitler w ritten in 1936.

He read gluttonously at this period, though exactly w hat only he know s. From later rem arks, he apparently read m ore Goethe to dislike him for criticizing the Germ ans; adored Schiller, that patriot’s poet; and devoured all he could find about Bism arck, still the Führer’s sentim ental hero.

What’s m ore im portant, Hitler clearly read up on the Habsburg Em pire’s lam entable history, thus founding his angry, racial Nazi Weltanschauung of today; he certainly also read the French Count de Gobineau, from w hom he got his notions of Nordic race superiority…

(7 March 1936, 27)

She also opened people’s eyes to Parisian life after the Liberation.

Existence in Paris is still abnorm al w ith relief, w ith belief. The tw o together m ake for confusion. The population of Paris is still a m ass of uncoordinated C HRISTIANE H ARDY

125

individuals, each w alking through the ceaseless w inter rains w ith his m em ories. Governm ent, because it is a novelty after four years of occupation, seem s so intimate that each citizen feels he can keep his eye on it in vigilant curiosity. New s too, is intim ate as if the globe had shrunk to suit the size of the one-sheet French new spapers … (15 Decem ber 1944) Vietnam & Desert Storm. Media coverage of Vietnam w as a rare exception in the history of com bat coverage by the Am erican media. Never before had the press been granted such access to a w ar zone. And never again. That w ar served as a lesson to the Government and provided the maximum of freedom for the m edia.

In every w ar since then, the m edia have battled w ith the Governm ent for the right to report the w ar as they see it. During the Gulf War a system w as established restricting press by forcing reporters to travel in small groups consisting of reporters, photographers and a sm all television crew – contents w ere censored. As a result, at least one enterprising journalist w ent undercover. Jonathan Franklin, after studying the M ortuary M anagement M agazine, courageously applied for a job at the Desert Storm m orgue.

“Got your em balm ing license, Franklin? You can start this afternoon,” the stocky m ortician yelled to m e w hile stitching an arm y private’s crum bling skull. I w as next door, w atching a crack m ortician team stuff a second m utilated body into a starched uniform .

Posing as a m oonlighting m ortician, I had entered the m ortuary at Dover Air Force Base, the sole Desert Storm casualty-processing center, during the bloodiest part of the brief ground w ar. That, I believe, m ade m e the only journalist to see the dead being returned from the Gulf.

126

INVESTIGATIVE, U NDERCO VER & EMBEDDED JO URNALISM

As a professional journalist, deception is not a step I take lightly. But w hen the Pentagon cancelled all press access to Dover to prevent the Am erican public from being dem oralized by the sight of body bags and coffins, I found the ordinary rules of reporting unacceptable.

What had I learned? Morticians, hearse drivers and data clerks inside the m ortuary all freely told m e the truth about the w ar dead. While the Pentagon w as setting the num ber of casualties at 55, one of m y tem porary colleagues told m e she w as com puterizing data on about 200 dead soldiers. [Final U.S. toll: 399 dead] “And w henever possible,” a secretary had w hispered to m e, “com bat deaths are classified as ‘training accidents’.”

Undercover. Funnily enough in journalism you som etim es cannot get close enough to reveal, explore, unm ask and expose. In contrast w ith the em bedded journalists, w ho consisted of a group of 500, this kind of journalism is m ostly a solitary pursuit, w ithout even the nearest of kin being inform ed, and is know n as undercover journalism . This journalistic concept becam e w ell know n to a broader audience in the 1970s w hen Günter Wallraff w rote Der Aufmacher about his experiences w orking as a journalist at the Bild Z eitung in Berlin (later to be follow ed by his book Ganz Unten describing his fate as a foreign w orker in Germ an Factories). Few people, how ever, know that the practice of undercover journalism w as already perform ed around 1880 by a w om an nam ed Nellie Bly. Elizabeth Jane Cochran chose her pen-nam e from a character in a popular song and undercover journalism w as to becom e her tradem ark. A sexist colum n in the Pittsburgh Dispatch prom pted her to w rite a letter to the editor. The editor C HRISTIANE H ARDY

127

w as so im pressed by the letter that he asked her to join the paper as a reporter. In 1887 she m oved to Joseph Pulitzer’s New York World, for w hich she exposed the conditions to w hich the mentally ill w ere subjected by pretending to be mad and getting herself committed to the asylum on Blackw ell’s Island. Not only did this article appear in the paper, but it w as also published as a book carrying both illustrations and advertisem ents for corsets, a shrew d w ay to finance a book publication…

Price twenty-five cents TEN DAYS IN A MAD-HO USE

BY NELLIE BLY New York, Ian L. Munro, publisher, 24 and 26 Vandew ater Street WHY are Madam e Mora’s corsets a m arvel of com fort and elegance!

Try them and you w ill find WHY they need no breaking in, but feel easy at once.

WHY they are liked by Ladies of full figure.

WHY they do not break dow n over the hips.

Their popularity has induced m any im itations, w hich are frauds, high at any price. Buy only the genuine, stam ped Madam e Mora’s.

Sold by all leading dealers w ith this GUARANTEE: that if not perfectly satisfactory upon trial the m oney w ill be refunded.

L. KRAUS & CO ., Manufacturers, Birm ingham , Conn.

O n the 22nd of September I w as asked by the World if I could have myself committed to one of the asylums for the insane in New York, w ith a view to w riting a plain and unvarnished narrative of the treatm ent of the patients therein and the methods of management, etc.

“You are in a public institution now, and you can’t expect to get anything. This is charity, and you should be thankful for w hat you get.”

128

INVESTIGATIVE, U NDERCO VER & EMBEDDED JO URNALISM

“But the city pays to keep these places up,” I urged, “and pays people to be kind to the unfortunates brought here.”

“Well, you don’t need to expect any kindness here, for you w on’t get it,” she said, and she w ent out and closed the door.

“What are you doctors here for?” I asked one, w hose nam e I cannot recall.

“To take care of the patients and test their sanity,” he replied.

“Very w ell,” I said. “There are sixteen doctors on this island, and excepting tw o, I have never seen them pay any attention to the patients. How can a doctor judge a w om an’s sanity by m erely bidding her good m orning and refusing to hear her pleas for release?

Even the sick ones know it is useless to say anything, for the answ er w ill be that it is their imagination.” “Try every test on me,” I have urged others, “and tell me am I sane or insane? Try m y pulse, m y heart, m y eyes; ask m e to stretch out m y arm , to w ork m y fingers, as Dr. Field did at Bellevue, and then tell m e if I am sane.”

They w ould not heed m e, for they thought I raved.

Again I said to one, “You have no right to keep sane people here. I am sane, have alw ays been so and I m ust insist on a thorough exam ination or be released. Several of the w om en here are also sane. Why can’t they be free?”

I am happy to be able to state as a result of m y visit to the asylum and the exposures consequent thereon, that the City of New York has appropriated $1,000,000 m ore C HRISTIANE H ARDY

129

per annum than ever before for the care of the insane.

So I have at least the satisfaction of know ing that the poor unfortunates w ill be the better cared for because of m y w ork.

And so Nelly Bly’s first assignm ent for her em ployer Joseph Pulitzer turned out to be a great success. This form of journalism w ould become her trademark. Public acclaim w as bestow ed on her w hen she took her trip around the w orld after Jules Verne’s then famous book Around the World in Eighty Days. She left New York on 14 November 1889 and returned 72 days, 6 hours and 11 m inutes and 14 seconds later, m aking her a celebrity.

Investigative Journalism. Although journalistic investigations already had a long history in Am erica, Watergate becam e an icon. Bob Woodw ard and Carl Bernstein, reporters for the Washington Post, investigated the Watergate break-in and first cracked the Watergate scandal in August 1972, w hich led to the resignation of President Richard M. Nixon in 1974. In the m inds of m any Bob Woodw ard and Carl Bernstein stand for investigative journalism , w hich seem s to fit into an Am erican tradition m uch m ore than the em bedded journalist. The Lonesom e Cow boy – a solitary w anderer on a quest for justice.

An early example: Ida B. Wells.

Ida Bell Wells, a brilliant investigative journalist and hum an rights activist, is a fam iliar figure to African Am ericans and others concerned w ith justice in the US. During the first part of the tw entieth century, Wells used her new spaper colum ns and speeches to sound the alarm on the lynching of black people in the South. She w rote for several black new spapers, utilizing her new s sources and her first-hand investigative inform ation 130

INVESTIGATIVE, U NDERCO VER & EMBEDDED JO URNALISM

to show that lynching w as m ore often used as a w ay to instil fear in and exert pow er over all blacks. Wells interview ed w itnesses at lynchings and looked at events im m ediately preceding the act, to gain an understanding of the act of lynching in individual cases. What she uncovered w as that lynchings w ere not a punishm ent for acts of sexual violence (this rooting from the m yth that black m an w ere super virile, uncontrollably prom iscuous and assaulting w hite w om en), but for attem pting to register to vote, for being too successful, for failing to be sufficiently dem ure to w hites, or for being in the w rong place at the w rong tim e. In addition, she show ed that lynchings w ere not an act of out-of-control w hites horrified over a grievous crim e. Rather, lynchings w ere often planned several days in advance and had police support. Not only m en w ere lynched, but w om en and children w ere, too. Wellsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s w ork uncovered the thin veneer w hich w as used to justify lynching.

They w ere not m en of bad character, but quite the reverse. They w ere intelligent, hard-w orking m en, and all declared they could easily prove their innocence. They w ere taken to a Warehouse to be kept until their trial next day. That night, about 12 oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; clock, an arm ed m ob m arched to the place and fired three volleys into the line of chained prisoners. They then w ent aw ay thinking all w ere dead. All the prisoners w ere shot. O f these five died. Nothing w as done about the killing of these m en, but their fam ilies w ere afterw ard ordered to leave the place, and all have left. Five w idow s and seventeen fatherless children, all driven from hom e, constitute one result of the lynching. I saw no one w ho thought m uch about the m atter. The Negroes w ere dead, and w hile they did not know w hether they w ere guilty or not, it w as plain that nothing could be done about it. And so the m atter ended. With these facts I m ade m y w ay C HRISTIANE H ARDY

131

hom e, thoroughly convinced that a Negro’s life is a very cheap thing in Georgia …

Ida Wells published the book A Red Record, that explored the ideological, econom ic, and political sources of lynching in the South. Her w ork w ould eventually galvanize an international movement calling for federal intervention to end the violence.

Afflict the Comfortable. Investigative journalists are likely not to be loved by those in pow er, because their w ork focuses m ostly on m atters that should be hushed up. Unveiling corruption and m alpractice, its goal is to support dem ocracy and to draw attention to the flaw s of the system. Investigative journalism feeds itself on verifiable facts and opposing view points. The investigative journalist as a w atchdog is clearly not cherished by everybody, as a form er press secretary of Mrs. Thatcher states: “The conviction that the governm ent is inevitably, irrevocably and chronically up to no good, not to be trusted and conspirational. This sours and contaminates the judgement of otherw ise com petent journalists as to render them pathetically negative, inaccurate and unreliable. In this context Watergate has a lot to answ er for here – and across the w orld …” This reaction is not surprising taking into account that som e investigative journalists claim their goal is to com fort the afflicted and to afflict the com fortable.

New Media, Better Access. New m edia and especially the World Wide Web m ake it easier for investigative journalists and the public alike to gather inform ation that used to be inaccessible. This in turn em pow ers m any people to control opinions w hich have been stated as facts, and is an opportunity to increase im partiality and objectivity by inform ing oneself. The Internet offers autonom y, and people are able to discuss and com pare w ith no restrictions – a com m odity sadly still restricted to the Western hem isphere. The absolutism of the 132

INVESTIGATIVE, U NDERCO VER & EMBEDDED JO URNALISM

printed w ord is questioned. Counterchecking your sources and verifying inform ation has becom e m uch easier through e-m ail and Internet and certainly less tim e-consum ing.

And finally … Making distinctions betw een different types of journalism is of course to a certain extent artificial. Investigative journalists can go undercover, and som e undercover journalists m ight prove m ore investigative than expected.

In com parison to these tw o form s of journalism , em bedded journalism seem s quite toothless. Investigative journalism still has potential in “the battle betw een the pow ers” of m edia and authority. The use of new m edia and the opportunities provided by the Internet seem to enlarge the possibilities for this kind of journalism , w here access is of utm ost im portance and areas can be opened that w ere previously restricted.

Used so urces: * All the President’s M en, the m ovie 1976. * Atkins, Joseph B. (ed.), The M ission, Journalism Ethics and the World (Iow a State Press, 2002). * Bly, Nellie [Elizabeth Jane Cochrane Seam an] (1864-1922), Ten Days in a M ad-House, published w ith M iscellaneous Sketches: Trying to be a Servant, and N ellie Bly as a W hite Slave (New York: Ian L. Munro, Publisher, n.d.). * Burgh, Hugo de (ed.), Investigative Journalism, Context and Practice (Routledge, 2000). * Flanner, Janet; Drutm an, Irving (ed.); Shaw n, William (Introduction), Janet Flanner’s World: Uncollected Writings 1932-1975 (Harvest Books; ISBN: 015645971X). * Ingham , Kill the M essenger (Harper Collins, 1991). * Lang, Peter, Perspectives of Four Women Writers on the Second World War, Gertrude Stein, Janet Flanner, Kay Boyle and Rebecca West, Z ofia P. Lesinska (2002).

C HRISTIANE H ARDY

133

Hanna Vuokko The Transfo rmatio n or Ho mage to Kafka

I. When Gregor Sam sa w oke one m orning he found him self transform ed into a journalist. His dream s had been uneasy: hurried deadlines, prying questions put to unw illing politicians, and cam era flashes going off, all to a backdrop of the nauseating sound of the tapping of a keyboard. He w oke up w ith cold sw eat on his forehead and his pyjam as dam p and rum pled from tossing around in his bed all night.

“What has happened to m e?” he thought. It w as not a dream . He w as lying on his back, looking around the sm all peaceful room betw een the fam iliar w alls. It all looked norm al and safe. How ever, on the table next to the w indow stood a laptop w hich had been left on, judging by the slightly greenish flicker from the screen, and he had a vague recollection of having w anted to take a short break from a particularly challenging paragraph. “Suppose I w ent back to sleep for a w hile and forgot all this nonsense,” he thought. But that w as quite im possible. Curiosity drove Gregor up and tow ards the laptop. But before he m anaged to get there, he had a glance at the alarm clock standing next to the bed. “God alm ighty!” he thought.

Might the alarm not have rung? He m ust have slept very deeply. O r m aybe the sound effects from his dream had drow ned out the alarm ? He realized that he w ould not m ake it to the office on tim e anyw ay, so there w as no point in rushing.

Instead, he decided to get dressed and have breakfast, before contem plating his next m ove.

In the kitchen, his parents looked up in shock w hen seeing Gregor enter the room w ith the laptop under his arm . His m other even gave out a sm all gasp, and flung up her hands to H ANNA VUO KKO

135

her m outh. Gregor m ade an im m ediate decision not to stay in the house, but to eat elsew here. It w as all too confusing for him , he didn’t need the added burden of having to try to m ake sense of it to his parents. He rushed past his parents, w ith just the slightest w ave – trying in one gesture to allay their w orries – and opened the door.

And there it w as. O n the top of the stairs, third step from the garden to the front door, right in the m iddle. Som e blood w as pooling around it and slow ly dripping dow n on the sunflow ers that cheerily reached tow ards the w indow sill next to the stairs. The body of a dog, the head noticeably m issing.

II. The ensuing com m otion w as unbelievable. Gregor’s surprised cry attracted his parents and his sister Grete, the m aid, som e neighbours and a few passers-by w ho approached in curiosity but soon joined the circle around the carcass w ith the others, shuffling and m um bling, and casting an eye now and then on Gregor. Grete had to run back into the kitchen to fetch som e sm elling salts to revive her unconscious m other. The m aid had a scream ing fit until som ebody slapped her. The next-door neighbours im m ediately started poking around the bushes in the garden for clues, one of them running back and forth on the street peeking into the side streets to see w hether he could see any suspicious activity. But the w orst w as Gregor’s father.

He stood at the door, stony-faced, just looking at Gregor w ith an expression sw itching betw een sadness, w orry, rage and blam e faster than Gregor could interpret it. And he didn’t say a w ord. The air around him felt heavy, just like in hom es w here a great calam ity has occurred.

Gregor couldn’t take it for long. He grabbed the laptop and w ith a few strides crossed the garden, turned left on the street and then im m ediately into a side street, hoping that nobody w ould pursue him . His feet knew w here to take him ; 136

T HE T RANSFO RMATIO N

OR

H O MAGE TO KAFKA

he just follow ed them tow ards the office. His m ind kept bouncing back and forth betw een the dog, the dream and the laptop – w hat w as going on? He knew there had to be a connection, the m orning had been too unusual for there not to be.

He did not forget to rem ind him self at intervals that the coolest of cool reflection w as better by far than desperate decisions. But he did not feel too cool w hen finally turning tow ards the building w here his office obviously w as located.

He found a desk buried under piles of paper w hich seem ed to belong to him – it had a picture of his fam ily on the bulletin board. He had w alked to it w ithout talking to anybody, just nodding to those w ho looked up from their w ork w hile he passed by. Brushing aside som e new spapers, he put dow n the laptop and opened it. The last opened file w as called “pipe line.doc”. Glancing through the text Gregor felt the cold sw eat that he recognized from the m orning return. His eyes w ere draw n to som e key w ords: corruption, bribe, kickbacks. There w ere references to the president and his fam ily. The m edia w as blam ed for a broad cover up – w hich seem ed to be easy since it w as claim ed that m ost of it w as ow ned by the president’s im m ediate fam ily.

Right then a door opened at the end of the hallw ay and a voice called out Gregor’s nam e. Walking slow ly to the room of the editor-in-chief – that’s w hat the nam eplate on the door said – a jum ble of thoughts w ere sw irling in Gregor’s head: questions, strategies, explanations, m ore questions.

“Mr. Sam sa,” the editor-in-chief now called out in a loud voice, “w hat is w rong? You barricade yourself in your room , answ er nothing but yes and no, cause us all a great deal of unnecessary anxiety, and neglect your professional duties in a frankly quite outrageous m anner. O r have you been w orking on som ething? I m ust ask you m ost earnestly for an im m ediate and unam biguous explanation.” It w as obvious to Gregor that his questions w ould not be answ ered here. Having m ade H ANNA VUO KKO

137

a quick calculation in his head, he decided that it w ould nevertheless m ake m ost sense to reveal the content of the file and proceeded in sum m arizing it.

A com plete silence had fallen in the room . “God forbid,” the editor-in-chief then suddenly cried out, already in tears.

“What have you done? This now explains it all: the fire inspection yesterday, the call today about the upcom ing tax inspection, the visit from the landlord about the raise in rent for our prem ises. Even the m ayor cancelled the interview that w as planned for this w eek. You know you can’t do such a thing. I find m yself losing absolutely all inclination to defend you in any w ay w hatsoever.”

Gregor found him self slow ly w alking back hom e thinking of visa requirem ents and pseudonym s.

III. The next m orning Gregor w oke up w ith his head pounding, feeling a strange strain around his w rists and hearing noises that sounded like furniture being dragged across the room . He could rem em ber having taken refuge in the sauna after the long strenuous day, but he couldn’t rem em ber drinking so there shouldn’t be a hangover. Slow ly he turned his head to see feverish activity: several uniform ed policem en m eticulously com bing over every inch of the room . Trying to sit up, Gregor im m ediately realized w hat the strain w as: he w as handcuffed.

Next to him , a burly policem an, having noticed that Gregor w as aw ake, im m ediately proceeded to push him up and out the door to a w aiting police car.

The day continued in a haze. Gregor couldn’t fathom w hether this w as a continuance to the dream from the day before, or an entirely new nightm are. The interrogations w ent on for hours on end. What had Gregor done the night before?

Who w as there? Could he prove it? When Gregor’s law yer arrived and w as finally allow ed in, the situation becam e clear: 138

T HE T RANSFO RMATIO N

OR

H O MAGE TO KAFKA

Gregor w as under investigation for raping a m inor, a young girl visiting the neighbours. The horror of the allegation w ashed over Gregor. This had to be m ore than a nightm are, perhaps som e kind of an absurd reality w arp.

A few endless investigation-filled days later, escorted by tw o policem en, Gregor arrived at the court building w ith a sw ollen black eye and w ith his glasses broken. It w as courteously explained to the judge by one of the policem en that a m inor traffic accident had occurred on the w ay to court, Gregor being the sole unfortunate casualty. Gregor tried to raise his eyebrow s to this, but couldn’t, due to the pain that w as ham m ering aw ay at his tem ple.

Gregor’s law yer tried persistently to raise contradictions, inconsistencies, and irregularities in the investigation, the evidence, the w itness testim onies and expert statem ents, just to be turned dow n by the judge on every issue. He argued bias and prejudice by the police, as w ell as suspicious links betw een the law enforcem ent agencies and other pow er structures. He explained that even the president had gone on record publicly declaring Gregor guilty in a press conference before the trial had even begun – just one part of a m assive cam paign to discredit Gregor in the public’s eye. Before Gregor had been arrested, a fax from the presidential adm inistration had given instructions to the police on how to answ er the questions put by the m edia. The course of the trial unearthed new procedural problem s and violations w hich w ere all brought up. But to no avail. All the claim s w ere refused and in the end Gregor w as sent back to jail for a very long tim e.

IV. Gregor’s days in his cell w ere very long. He w as not allow ed to receive parcels or letters – the explanations to this w ere quite obscure. All visitors had been refused, until finally one day his father w as allow ed to see him .

H ANNA VUO KKO

139

It w as not a cheerful visit. Gregor had not heard any new s from the outside for ages. None of w hat he heard today w as good. Gregor’s father explained fully the fam ily’s financial situation and prospects. The fam ily had been living off Gregor’s incom e; now they w ere not only deprived of this but had to try to cover his legal expenses. They really should be thinking of new coping strategies. The m ain reason that prevented the fam ily from m oving w as rather a feeling of utter hopelessness and the thought that they had been afflicted by a m isfortune that none of their friends and relatives had ever suffered.

There w as nobody to turn to. The friends of the fam ily had all suddenly becom e inaccessible. Gregor w ould have been glad that they had disappeared, had he not heard that this included his form er colleagues – the m edia had not been kind to him .

Even though he realized that fear and self-preservation w ere factors in this, he w ished he could have a chance to clear his nam e. He realized how easy it is for som ebody to fall prey to gossip, coincidences and unfounded com plaints, against w hich he is com pletely unable to defend him self.

That evening Gregor w as lying in his bed, as every evening, not sleeping a w ink but merely tossing and turning for hours on end. He recalled his fam ily w ith tenderness and love. He realized that the sight of him w as quite unbearable to them , even though they had tried to ease the em barrassm ent of the w hole situation as m uch as they could. His conviction that he w ould have to disappear w as, if possible, even firm er than before.

He tried to fall asleep, hoping to w ake up w ithout the nightm are recapturing him from the first m om ent of the m orning. He w as still conscious as everything grew brighter outside the w indow.

This work is a product of fiction: all similarities to any recent cases occurring in the O SCE region are purely coincidental. All similarities, references and quotes related to Franz Kafka’s Metam orphosis are intentional and used with utmost respect.

140

T HE T RANSFO RMATIO N

OR

H O MAGE TO KAFKA

Ana Karlsreiter The Value o f $20,000 Professional Journalism: A Training Initiative for K osovo I met Christiane Amanpour in person in September 2002. She w as reporting live from the IAEA Headquarter in Vienna on the Iraq crisis. O f course, I had know n her from TV, covering some of the w orld’s most dangerous corners, but this time it w as obviously different, it w as real. I have to admit that I w as alw ays keeping a critical eye on her w ork, but it took me five minutes to change my mind – I w as now standing next to her w atching her w orking and I w as immediately taken by her. As my mother, w ho is a journalist, alw ays says, reporting live is the ultimate test for a journalist and there are not that many reporters w ho are really good at it. Now I am convinced – Christiane Amanpour is definitely one of the best live reporters.

The next positive surprise about Christiane Am anpour w as her openness – no superstar attitude at all. Q uite the contrary! I introduced m yself and w e started a very relaxed and easygoing conversation. But I have to be honest and adm it that she w as m ore interested in m y story than in m y person – she w anted to know w hat had happened to the $20,000 she donated for m edia projects in Kosovo.

It all began in 1996 w hen Mr. Freim ut Duve, then the chairm an of the O SCE PA General Com m ittee on Dem ocracy, Hum an Rights and Hum anitarian questions, initiated the O SCE Prize for Journalism and Dem ocracy. His idea w as that the prize should be presented to journalists or groups of journalists w ho through their w ork prom ote the principles of free journalism as laid dow n by the O SCE Budapest Declaration in 1994. Since then the prize has received international recognition.

ANA KARLSREITER

141

The first w inner of the $20,000 aw ard w as Adam Michnik, the prom inent form er dissident against com m unist rule and one of Poland’s leading journalists today. In 1997 the aw ard w ent to the non-governm ental organization Reporters sans frontières and in 1998 to the historian Tim othy Garton Ash. Andrei Babitsky, the Radio Free Europe reporter, w ho w as covering the w ar in Chechnya, w on the prize in 2000 and in 2001 it w as aw arded posthum ously for the first tim e. It w as divided betw een the w idow s of tw o courageous journalists w ho w ere m urdered for their professional dedication: Georgiy Gongadze from Ukraine and Jose Luis Lopez de Lacalle from Spain. In 2002 the prize w as again shared by the Austrian TV journalist, Friedrich O rter and the Belarusian TV journalist Pavel Sheremet, the editor-in-chief of the new spaper Belarusskaya Delovaya Gazeta, for their independent and reliable reporting. The Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya, called by m any “Russia’s lost m oral conscience” received the 2003 prize in recognition of her courageous professional w ork. Her dispatches for the Russian biw eekly N ovaya Gazeta, published in English under the title A Dirty War: A Russian Reporter in Chechnya have w on her acclaim internationally and death threats at hom e.

The w inner in 1999 w as Christiane Am anpour. As already m entioned she opted to donate the $20,000 for m edia projects in Kosovo. Mr. Duve decided to initiate a training program m e for young journalists from Kosovo. I w as appointed project m anager and arrived in Pristina in Septem ber 2001 w ith the heavy burden of Christiane Am anpour’s m oney and Mr. Duve’s visions. I had prom ised him that I w ould find the best candidates for our new project to help young journalists from Kosovo. I knew from the beginning that this w as not going to be an easy task. We really w anted to give a chance to young people, w ho otherw ise w ould never have the opportunity to com plete an internship at a Western m edia outlet.

I decided to start looking for candidates in the so-called Media 142

T HE VALUE O F $20,000

Building in Pristina w here som e of the biggest m edia outlets in Kosovo are located. I had w onderful conversations w ith young journalists w orking there and w as im pressed by their dedication. In the editorial room of Radio Kontakt, the only m ultilingual radio station in Kosovo, I m et Blerta Belegu, a young Albanian journalist, w ho becam e the first candidate for our internship program m e. She w as exactly the person I w as looking for – young and m otivated.

The next day I visited the beautiful sm all tow n of Prizren.

In one of the num erous cafés along the river, I w as introduced to the tw o editors of the local youth m agazine, w ho becam e our next tw o candidates. Albina Mislini and Besa O sm ani w ere quite rem arkable in their ow n w ay – both in their early tw enties and enthusiastic about their w ork. They w ere w orking on a story about the pressing problem of lotteries and gam bling and how this has obsessed m any people in Kosovo and w hy. What struck m e m ost about the tw o girls w as that they believed in the pow er and necessity of w riting their stories.

“The story has to be w ritten, no m atter w hat w ould happen to m e later.” I felt replenished after talking to Albina and Besa.

I spent the evening w ith Besa’s fam ily. A friendly crow d of w om en and children of different ages w elcom ed m e w arm ly at the door. Very soon I felt at hom e and found m yself sitting on the floor and playing dom ino gam es w ith the kids. The com m unication w as difficult because nobody, except for Besa, spoke any English, but there w ere no w ords required to realize w hy m ost of the w om en in this house w ere dressed in black and the m en w ere only present on the photos in the dining room – the house w as full of those signs of death. In fact, as Besa told m e later, alm ost all her m ale relatives w ere killed or disappeared during the Kosovo w ar. And she said that the w orst is that nobody talks about it. Horrible things have happened in this house but silence w as the only w ay her fam ily deals w ith this tragedy – silence, diversion and denial! This ANA KARLSREITER

143

evening though w as supposed to be different … for all of us.

Suddenly, Besa’s mother, w ho seemed not even to notice me at the beginning and w as all the time busy bringing flow ers from the garden and sorting them into vases, sat next to me and started to talk in Albanian, w hich I don’t speak. But there w as no translation needed: I could see the deep grief in her eyes and I knew w hat she w as talking about. And I knew that she needed me just to be there and listen to her. For the first time in my life I w as directly confronted w ith w ar and its consequences. It w as hard to believe that the w alls of this friendly house w ere w itnesses of such a horrible crime and this family has to live and survive w ith the memories of this unthinkable tragedy.

O n the next day I travelled to Kosovska Mitrovica. Know ing that Kosovska Mitrovica w as a divided city, I alw ays thought that the bridge w ould be m uch bigger and the river w ould be m uch w ider. Now, crossing the tiny bridge, I realized w hat the borders in people’s m inds really m ean.

In the local editorial room of Radio Kontakt I m et Jelena Aleksic. She shared w ith m e the difficulties she experienced in her everyday w ork as a Serbian reporter in the m ultilingual radio station. Even her relatives can’t understand her and blam e her for being very friendly to the “others” i.e. Albanians.

Very often she felt like a traitor am ong her ow n friends, she said. Her courage took m y breath aw ay. Jelena’s sense of journalism w as so ethical, and to rem ain a journalist w ho w as independent w as her professional credo. I w as convinced that Jelena w as the best candidate for our training initiative.

That evening I w as invited to Jelena’s place. I w as again w arm ly w elcom ed by the fam ily, although none of them had ever m et m e before. Since the apartm ent w as located directly on the river, facing the bridge and the Albanian part of the city, the subject of w ar w as unavoidable. Jelena’s m other w as crying w hen she told m e how her neighbours, w ith w hom she had shared her entire life, had becom e enem ies and m onsters overnight.

144

T HE VALUE O F $20,000

The next day, after m y second sleepless night, w hen a ray of soft light w as entering m y room , I realized that coping w ith this black and w hite controversial w orld also belongs to the reality of the post-w ar situation. I realized that the struggle for peace is a far greater battle than w ar.

Back in Vienna, I inform ed Mr. Duve about the w onderful young journalists I had m et and the training program m e w as launched im m ediately. We invited Jelena and Blerta to the Tenth Annual Session of the O SCE Parliam entary Assem bly in Paris, w here they w ere involved in the w ork of the press office there. Afterw ards they spent a m onth in Vienna as interns w ith Der Standard, w here they becam e acquainted w ith the w ork of their Austrian colleagues and learned a lot about the principles of Western journalism .

As a follow -up to this visit, w e decided to support Jelena Alexic on her further professional path and arranged a yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s internship at Radio B92 for her. This had alw ays been her professional dream , w hich until then had seem ed unobtainable.

Blerta Belegu w ent back to Pristina and started her journalism studies.

The other tw o candidates, the young journalists from Prizren, Albina Mislimi and Besa O smani, w ere involved for one month in the w ork of the mobile.culture.container in Gorazde, Bosnia and Herzegovina, w here they learned a lot about the press w ork and public relations of this project.

Th rough m y colleague Ch ristian e Hardy, w h o w as a long-term election supervisor in Kosovo, I heard about Sara Kelm endi, Arlinda Desku and Artan Muhaxhiri. They are th ree youn g journ alists, w orkin g at th e recen tly foun ded w eekly new spaper Java, the only Albanian-language m edia outlet in Kosovo publishing in the m ain spoken Gheg idiom .

We started to exchange e-m ails and I learned m ore about them and their w ork.

ANA KARLSREITER

145

Sara is 21 and has studied English language and literature at the University in Pristina. After a short internship at Koha Ditore she decided to join Java. She w as one of the founding staff m em bers of the new spaper. She w rote to m e that she w anted to w ork for Java because she believes in the editorial policy of the new spaper to prom ote tolerance and understanding through alleviation of language barriers. This is how she describes the challenge and the beauty of her w ork: “Throughout your journalistic w ork you have the opportunity to do som ething good and visible for society!”

The dedicated w ork of Sara and her colleagues Arlinda Desku and Rina Meta m ade the grow ing success of the new spaper possible. The readership is increasing and Java’s transform ation from a biw eekly to a w eekly new spaper has been com pleted. O nce Arlinda w rote to m e that Java and its concept m ake her believe that there is a chance for changes in Kosovo: “All that you need is that you are aw are of your ow n pow er and the pow er of your civil courage …to ask, to knock and knock again on closed doors … being nothing else but a citizen of your country.” Rina also started her w ork at Java driven by the hidden am bitions that through her journalistic w ork she could create a public opinion w hich w ould be in favour of reform s in Kosovo. O nce she w rote to m e that she and her colleagues from Java believe that the w orld around them belongs to them and it’s also up to them to change it. Sara, Arlinda and Rina, and their articles about truth and courage, about how to fight preconceived ideas and how to learn from and respect other cultures, convinced m e that they also deserve a chance and they becam e participants in our training initiative.

We sent the last sum of 500 euros to Kosovska Mitrovica to support the establishment of a school new spaper netw ork there.

I am confident that all participants in our internship program m e w ill becom e good journalists. Especially the reports

by Jelena Alexic, w ho w as not only offered a job by B92 but 146

T HE VALUE O F $20,000

also becam e one of their star reporters, are proving m e right: “Although at first sight Kosovo and Belgrade, from the point of view of a journalist’s w ork, seem to be tw o w orlds apart, sim ilarities are inevitable. The basic links betw een these ‘tw o w orlds’ are the principles on w hich a journalist bases her/his w ork. Apart from accuracy of the inform ation that the journalist passes on to the audience, another principle I have based m y w ork on is objectivity. O bjectivity, in m y opinion, m eans that all of the interested parties are allow ed to express their view s on the issue that is dealt w ith. At the sam e tim e, objective inform ation does not leave any room for a journalist’s personal opinion or attitude. The journalist has to produce the inform ation and to share it w ith the audience but leave them to decide w hom to believe.” I really adm ire the w ay in w hich Jelena began to grow in her reporting.

In the end, w ith the relatively sm all sum of $20,000 at least seven young people w ere offered a professional and personal future in their country.

The participants in our initiative restored m y belief in the pow er of journalism . And I am certain that there are m any capable young journalists in Kosovo and elsew here w ho deserve a chance – there are m any m ore interview s to conduct and so m any m ore leads to pursue …

Christiane Am anpour listened very thoughtfully and attentively to m y story. At the end she only said: “All this w ith m y $20,000. It w as probably the best investm ent in m y life!”

ANA KARLSREITER

147

Christian Möller First Amendment Freedo m Fighters?

Waitress: “You are reading about cyber-terrorists?”

Mitnick: “First Am endm ent Freedom Fighters!”

Waitress: “I think, this is like the Contras and the Sandinists, it’s all a perspective thing.”

Mitnick: “Well, anything anti Big Brother is probably good, don’t you think?”

Waitress: “Yeah, I have to agree w ith that.”

(Takedown, Joe Chapelle, USA 2000)

O ne rather neglected chapter in the history of the Internet is the history of hackers. Basically hackers are com puter specialists, m ostly young people, w ith the goal to find security holes in com puter system s, intrude in rem ote netw orks and then either vanish w ithout a trace or claim the fam e for their efforts. And w hereas facts are scarce, m yths, gossip and netlore bloom on the Internet. But w hile historiography on this topic is just aborning, Hollyw ood has already discovered com puters and netw orks as a source of various plots from love stories to action thrillers, and som e film s even explicitly pick out hacking as their m ajor them e.

Hacking History. In 1972 Cap’n Crunch, w hose real nam e is John T. Draper, got to be know n as the first phreaker (the w ord is a com bination of phone and freak) because he discovered that he could com m and the phone system of M a Bell to connect a call by playing a tune on a toy w histle he found in a box of Cap’n Crunch cereals. Although Draper eventually w as sentenced for fraud by w ire, phreaking and blueboxing – basically the m anipulation of telephone system s w ith a little box that generates tones just like the Cap’n Crunch toy w histle – rem ained popular w orldw ide until the late 1990s w hen phone C HRISTIAN M Ö LLER

149

netw orks becam e digitized and m ore secure. While part of the blueboxing com m unity just used their skills for late night chats w ith overseas friends or to call a random phone booth on the other side of the Atlantic, soon phreaking w as interw oven to som e extent w ith phone and credit card fraud, form ing the crim inal part of the transatlantic m ailboxing scene.

The transition from the analogue to the digital w orld meant that now not only the phone netw orks themselves could be manipulated but, equipped w ith a computer and a modem, it also becam e possible to use the phone lines to access rem ote com puters. O ne of the w orld’s m ost fam ous hackers, Kevin D. Mitnick, for example started to (mis-)use his computing skills in the early 1980s, first of all for pranks w ith telecom m unication com panies. Yet soon he w as reported for breaking into the Pentagon’s NO RAD com puter through the ARPAnet, the forerunner of the Internet, and w as eventually arrested five tim es throughout the 1980s. When in 1992 he w as w anted for violation of his probation term s he vanished as the FBI raided his place to arrest him and eluded an FBI m anhunt for m ore than tw o years. During this tim e Mitnick again gained access to confidential data of com panies and offices like the Departm ent for Motor Vehicles (DMV) as w ell as to telephone and cellular netw orks, eavesdropping FBI phone calls to stay one step ahead of his persecutors. He also stole thousands of credit card num bers but never used a single one of them . With the help of another young com puter expert, Tsutom u Shim om ura, w hose private com puter Mitnick captured at Christm as in 1994 and w ho took up the personal feud, the FBI finally m anaged to arrest 31-yearold Mitnick after a cross-country pursuit in 1995. He w as released from prison in January 2000, and his last probation ended in January 2003. The story of Mitnick w as motivation for num erous w ebsites, bum per stickers (“Free Kevin!”) and even a m ovie, Takedown (Joe Chapelle, USA 2000), from w hich the quote at the beginning of this article w as taken.

150

FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDO M FIGHTERS?

Another startling story is the one about the Germ an hacker Karl Koch, alias Hagbard Celine, w ho vanished on 23 May 1989 and later w as found dead in a forest near his hom e tow n of Hannover. Police investigation said it w as suicide. In the 1980s Koch hacked into a com puter in the US and sold the inform ation to the Russian intelligence service, the KGB. Later on he w as caught in a net w oven by journalists scenting a scoop, state police accusing him of espionage and m ental problem s caused by the excessive use of drugs. This case, too, inspired a m ovie (23, Hans-Christian Schm id, D 1998) along w ith a num ber of conspiracy theories.

How ever, w hile part of the net com m unity celebrates these hackers as heroes, m odern Robin Hoods fooling the m ighty and as fighters for freedom of expression, governm ent officials tend to treat them as run-of-the-m ill crim inals. O r, as som e critics say, courts even w ant to m ake an exam ple of each hacker trial to get the m essage through to their com rades and scare them off, because they target the very econom ic core of the Internet: the norm al user’s trust in security and integrity of the WWW. Hacking goes Hollywood. In spite (or just because) of the ongoing discussion betw een proponents and adversaries of the hacking scene, movies are made that romanticize actual events – like Takedown does w ith the Mitnick case – or m ake up w hole new stories. Naturally a m ovie is adopting a stance to the topic it deals w ith, intentionally or not. So, w hat answ ers do these film s give to the question, of w hether hacking is an honourable job, done by advocates of the idea of freedom of expression, a harm less prank or sim ply a crim e.

First of all, com puters and decentralized netw orks generally are not a new topic in television and cinem a. As early as 1973 the Germ an film m aker Rainer Werner Fassbinder directed Die Welt am Draht (World on a Wire, D 1973), a m ovie about a C HRISTIAN M Ö LLER

151

(fictional) com puter program , Simulacron, w hich is able to sim ulate a full featured reality. In 1983 the w orld w as on the brink of nuclear w ar, caused by an underage hacker w ho broke into NO RAD’s m ain com puter, m istaking real-tim e w ar room planning for a video gam e. At least this is the story told to us by the m ovie Wargames (USA 1983, John Badham ). But although hacking is used as part of the plot for this story, it is rather a film against the m adness of therm onuclear w arfare.

Hacking is just used to trigger the story and in the end to save the w orld by teaching the com puter that “the only w inning m ove is not to play”. Not so m uch of a fight for freedom of expression but rather a plea against placing decisions in the hands of com puters.

Depicting the Invisible. Another kind of w ar is described by Cosm o, played by Ben Kingsley, one of the m ain characters in Sneakers (Phil Alden Robinson, USA 1992): There is a w ar out there, old friend, a w orld w ar. And it’s not about w ho’s got the m ost bullets. It’s about w ho controls the inform ation: w hat w e see and hear, how w e w ork, w hat w e think. It’s all about the inform ation.

The film , produced by the sam e people w ho did Wargames nine years earlier, now focuses not only on com puter netw orks as a new w ay of com m unication but on the ability to access and exploit inform ation. Inform ation m eans control. And you need technical skills and know ledge to access this inform ation. The film does not criticize this know ledge as such, but the w ay it is used. While shifting m oney from the bank accounts of the Republican Party to the Black Panthers is regarded as a prank, the proprietary use of inform ation technology is condem ned, because it w ould lead to a dangerous im balance of inform ation “haves” and inform ation “have-nots”.

152

FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDO M FIGHTERS?

Anyw ay, m ovies by nature have a problem to depict the exchange of information as such. Whereas a laptop or a computer terminal can be added easily to the mis en scène it is difficult to illustrate the w ork of a computer virus or hacker attack. In Sneakers quite a number of McGuffin-like black boxes are used to translate cryptography and algorithms into Hollyw ood pictures. Just connecting one of the many black boxes – oblivious to problems w ith different interfaces of course – to either a CCTV camera or a bank’s mainframe enables you to gain control over the respective system. If there is a passw ord required a large splash screen w ill pop up, asking you for the passw ord and answ ering either w ith “access granted” or “access denied” in exactly the w ay the normal w ork station in your office w on’t.

The 1995 m ovie Hackers (Iain Softley, USA 1995) chooses a new w ay of depicting the flow of data in com puter netw orks and of visualizing com puter netw orks. Needless to say that though these im ages are colourful and edited in quick succession they have nothing to do w ith reality. Another fact far rem oved from real life is that the ability to type fast seem s to be the basic skill w hich m akes for the perfect hacker, as can be seen also years later, for exam ple in a very explicit scene in Swordfish (Dom inic Sena, USA 2001).

Hacker Manifesto. In opposition to so-called crackers, script kiddies and other firebrands, hackers stress that they have their ow n ethical and m oral standards, obligation and sense of duty.

They claim that they are just seeking to satisfy their intellectual curiosity, are not trying to get personal benefit from fraud, that they harm no one but instead are w orking to find security holes and to m ake the Internet a safer place. While this is not easy to see in the cases of Kevin Mitnick or Karl Koch there are som e hackers that becam e decisive interceders for the right of freedom of expression and privacy. The late Wau Holland, cofounder of the Chaos Com puter Club, is one exam ple.

C HRISTIAN M Ö LLER

153

From the very beginning, hackers surrounded them selves w ith the air of exclusiveness and secrecy, paired w ith a considerable am ount of paranoia. In this w ay they built on their ow n m yths like in the Hacker M anifesto, w ritten by Mentor and issued in Phrack on 8 January 1986, that gives som e im pression of the hackers’ self-im age as “com puter sam urai” or “keyboard cow boys”: […] This is our w orld now... the w orld of the electron and the sw itch, the beauty of the baud. We make use of a service already existing w ithout paying for w hat could be dirt-cheap if it w asn’t run by profiteering gluttons, and you call us criminals. We explore ... and you call us criminals. We seek after know ledge ... and you call us criminals. We exist w ithout skin color, w ithout nationality, w ithout religious bias ... and you call us criminals. You build atomic bombs, you w age w ars, you murder, cheat, and lie to us and try to make us believe it’s for our ow n good, yet w e’re the criminals.

Yes, I am a crim inal. My crim e is that of curiosity. My crim e is that of judging people by w hat they say and think, not w hat they look like. My crim e is that of outsm arting you, som ething that you w ill never forgive m e for.

I am a hacker, and this is m y m anifesto. You m ay stop this individual, but you can’t stop us all ... after all, w e’re all alike.

The film Hackers also establishes a new w ay of describing the hacking scene as a part of the youth culture w ith its ow n lifestyle and attitude. A clear segregation can be seen betw een the tw o sem antic room s of the classic understanding of crim e and justice. This is represented by FBI agents and business people on the one hand, and on the other by the hacker gang, in w hich people have pseudonym s like Crash O verride and Cereal Killer, 154

FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDO M FIGHTERS?

w hich stands for the em erging new w orld of com puter netw orks and inform ation technologies w ith their ow n law s and values. For exam ple, a strong position against all kinds of hacking attem pts for exam ple is represented by the FBI agents, w ho refer to the Hacker M anifesto as “com m i bullshit”: Hackers penetrate and ravage delicate public and private com puter system s, infecting them w ith viruses and stealing sensitive m aterials for their ow n interest. These people are terrorists.

The hackers of course have a different understanding of w hat they do and finally succeed in proving their innocence by disabling a dangerous com puter virus in a concerted action by the global hacking com m unity. Again the best hackers enjoy the highest status and court indictm ents even heighten their prestige. But w hile the hackers that are described in this m ovie are oblivious to law s and police they do have their ow n ethical standards: triggering the school’s sprinkler for fun is O K, sinking an oil tanker to blackm ail a com pany isn’t. Soon the w hole plot of the m ovie com es back to the fight of good against evil, w hich is transferred from the scenery of the Wild West to m odern com puter netw orks.

Takedown, the m ovie based on a book by Kevin Mitnick’s opponent Shim om ura, at first glance presents an unbiased view of the hunt for Mitnick from the tim e w hen he violated the term s of probation until his arrest in 1995. The am biguity of hacking is described in a conversation betw een Mitnick and a w aitress he m eets in a bar: Mitnick: “I think the First Am endm ent is pretty significant. It has value.”

Waitress: “I’m not quite sure w hat hackers breaking into the DMV or w hatever has to do w ith the First Am endm ent.”

Mitnick: “Well, I think the public has a right to know w hat’s going on. With everything. I m ean, w ho you C HRISTIAN M Ö LLER

155

gonna trust? You gotta trust Big Brother, you gotta trust corporations. Think they’re looking out for you.

Think of hacking as a public service.”

Waitress: “If I knew all hackers w ere altruistic, I w ould.”

Taking a closer look, how ever, the position taken by the film can soon be recognized. While Mitnick is described as a shy com puter genius Shim om ura is depicted as a keen show -off w ho enjoys being in the spotlight of congress hearings and m edia interest. But he also keeps back inform ation for his ow n advantage instead of m aking this public as hackers should.

Again, as seen before, the story soon boils dow n to the fight of tw o individuals. Rather than bargaining the pros and cons of hacking the film judges the personal integrity of its characters: hackers can be a w atchdog regarding freedom of expression and data protection as long as they stick to their ow n high m oral standards. But once they disobey these standards they w ill becom e corrupt and dangerous, as the exam ple of Shim om ura show s in this film . Although in the end Mitnick is arrested, the film depicts Shim om ura, even though he w orked together w ith police, as the m oral loser – from a hacker point of view.

Caught in the Matrix. The film M atrix (Andy and Larry Wachow ski, USA 1999) paints the picture of a w orld w here access to netw orks is highly restricted and m ankind is in fact an organic part of this netw ork w ithout know ing it. All surroundings, friends, jobs, basically the w hole of life are just a com puterized simulation. People lack the ability to see more than those in Plato’s cave m etaphor. To see the situation clearly from a m eta level and to escape the m atrix physically, hackers are once again needed, w ho can freely act in both the digital sim ulation of the Matrix and the tattered rem ains of the real w orld.

Intellectual skills are translated into the ability to m ove w ithin virtual realities, thus creating a new sym biosis betw een m an 156

FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDO M FIGHTERS?

and m achine. But w hile Neo and his hacker com panions strive to enable people to em erge from their im m aturity others try to get back into the com fortable sim ulation rather then living in the hostile environm ent of a w orld dom inated by m achines.

O ne question that rem ains is w hether w e really w ant to know each and everything, even if it m ight scare us.

Sapere Aude. All in all in the film s about the com puterized w orld, and especially about hacking, “inform ation” is regarded as one of the m ost im portant assets of today. In general the unhindered access to all kinds of inform ation is preached, but often problem s arise w here there is an im balance of those w ho are in possession of inform ation and those w ho are not.

What is m ore, people w ith access to restricted inform ation tend to m isuse their know ledge for their ow n advantage. O r in other w ords: the danger lies not so m uch in inform ation as such, no m atter how scary it m ight be, but in the deficiencies of individuals.

While at first sight this seem s to plead for the unrestricted access to every bit and piece of inform ation for everyone, conversely it could be interpreted that because of the dangers of the hum an factor there is a sound reason to keep som e inform ation w ell hidden. In a perfect w orld there w on’t be a need for hackers then, but as the w orld is far from perfect there m ust be at least a couple of upright heroes protecting us from the bad guys, w ho are m isusing inform ation.

In Hollyw ood hackers seem to be seen as “keyboard cow boys”. How ever, they are surely pranksters, som etim es crim inals, but w hether they are really “first am endm ent freedom fighters” is a question that has yet to be answ ered.

C HRISTIAN M Ö LLER

157

Andrey Kalikh The Eye o f the Sto rm

The place w here I come from is very quiet. Indeed, you w ould not call Perm, w hich is situated in the Urals, not far from the geographical centre of Russia, a capital city, w hereas Ekatherinburg, a neighbouring city on the opposite slope of the Ural Mountains is one. Separated only by 500 kilometres, w hich is not much in Russia, they are nevertheless in different parts of the w orld: Perm is still in Europe, w hile Ekatherinburg is in Asia.

How ever, this dem arcation is a conventional one. Geography has no bearing on the political and social culture of these cities: Perm is quiet and provincial com pared to Asian Ekatherinburg, w hich seem s to be an agitated European m egalopolis.

My city is full of w onders. Political hurricanes go past it.

Having a bear on its coat of arm s, it rem inds m e of one, though not of a dangerous w ild beast, but of a lazy dom estic anim al, for w hom sleep is the best solution for all problem s.

Perm w as asleep both before the Revolution and during Soviet tim es. When the w hirlw inds of perestroika overw helm ed the country in the late 1980s, Perm lazily opened its left eye, m uttered som ething about dem ocracy and, agreeing in absentia w ith the change of m aster and division of the cage into several independent corners, turned over. The neighbouring Ekatherinburg w as shattered by political turm oil, w hile all w as calm and quiet in Perm . Close to the geographical centre of the country, it w as in the eye of the storm , yet know n for its deadly calm .

Am azingly, sleep did help it avoid sores and scabs.

It so happened that I never heard in Perm of, say, m ass ethnic hate that has subm erged Russia lately. O n the contrary, it w as in Perm that one of the tw o centres for refugees ANDREY KALIKH

159

from the form er Soviet Union countries and elsew here w as open ed. Hun dreds of fam ilies from Ch ech n ya, Tajikistan , Afghanistan and other hot spots have found refuge there.

Perm has alw ays been traditionally tolerant to new com ers, and it has rem ained so.

God saved Perm from racist officials publicly calling to boycott Chechens, Arm enians, and Jew s and from skinhead gangs. Instead, w e have the unique Inter-confessional Advisory Council to the Governorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s O ffice, strong national culture autonom ies, joint interethnic activities and celebrations.

In addition, there are a num ber of active and influential NGO s, one of the strongest Hum an Rights Centres in the country, and authorities that find it a good idea to dem onstrate to their electors that they have friendly relations w ith public organizations. As a result, the general social and political atm osphere is favourable.

Although still dorm ant, Perm , unw ittingly, becam e one of the m ost liberal Russian regions. In 2002, the Moscow Sociological Carnegie Center assessed the level of dem ocracy in Russian regions. The criteria w ere the openness of elections, the tolerance of authorities and so forth. The Perm region w as ranked the first. And Muscovites have baptized Perm â&#x20AC;&#x153;the Civil Capitalâ&#x20AC;?.* Until recently, something of the kind could be said for the press in Perm. Drow sy and slack, as w as all political, social and cultural life, it w as seldom used for attacking political opponents.

Tough new spaper battles and skirmishes betw een functionaries coming to grips w ith each other in a serious pow er partition w ere rare. I have also never read about open hate speech in the new spapers. Truth be told, one could hardly imagine the w hole city talking about som e sensational article, an outstanding reportage or a controversial TV programme. * Research of the Moscow Carnegie Center, Izvestia, 14 O ctober 2002.

160

T HE EYE O F THE STO RM

The traditional calm of the Ural inhabitants and the seeds of liberalism , w hich originated from the generations of convicts exiled from the capital and thousands upon thousands of people repressed during the Stalin period w ho settled in that region, m ade Perm w hat it is now : a provincial spot of liberalism in the m iddle of the vast Ural taiga … … Then, all of a sudden, som ething prodded the sleeping bear painfully on the side, and it w oke up.

Everything changed at once and acquired a new atm osphere. Even I, three thousand kilom etres aw ay, clearly felt the anxiety of its inhabitants.

In the autumn of 2002, Zvezda, the oldest regional new spaper, w hich w as steady and quite loyal to the authorities published tw o large articles that w ere each a full page long. The authors of the articles, w ho had close connections to reliable sources in the Federal Secret Service (FSB) and Russian Hom e O ffice described the allegedly questionable m ethods, w hich these bodies had used to obtain information and fabricate cases.

The first article talked about a dangerous crim inal, a drug trafficker, w ho had been sentenced by Perm Regional Court to 12 years im prisonm ent in 1999. Within six m onths of his sentencing, he appeared in Perm again, free and w ith a new bulk of heroine. By pure chance, he w as recognized by one of the m ilitiam en in the VIP hall of the railw ay station in Perm . As it turned out, the crim inal w as set free in exchange for a prom ise to pick up inform ation about drug traffickers for the FSB. The crim inal fulfilled his prom ise only partly, continuing his drug trafficking business.

The second article dealt w ith the w ay that FSB agents had fabricated a case and accused an innocent person, a student at one of Perm ’s universities Vitalii Nikolayev, of inciting interethnic dissension and battering African students. This case clearly illustrated the w ish of the agents to appear zealous in the struggle against “state crim es” and to justify their existence.

ANDREY KALIKH

161

The reaction of the FSB w as very tough. Tw o w eeks after the first article w as published, the FSB investigators launched an investigation on “state secret disclosure”. What “state secret” w as contained in the article about the drug trafficker rem ained unclear even to the journalists: the authors w ere interrogated as w itnesses, and the case w as m arked as classified.

In Novem ber, a m onth and a half later, Z vezda published the second article titled “A Black Deal”. Sergei Trushnikov, editor-in-chief recounts: “The night before the article w as published the telephone rang in m y office. The person w ho called introduced him self as lieutenant colonel, Vice Head of the FSB office. He asked for an im m ediate m eeting. I said that I w as terribly busy (w e w ere preparing the next day’s issue) and suggested m eeting the next m orning. The official said that the next day it w ould no longer be urgent. I asked him w hat the talk w as about. ‘About the relations betw een our organizations’, he replied.”

It w as, indeed, too late the next day. In the m orning, Z vezda cam e out w ith the second revealing article, and in the afternoon som e m en arm ed w ith tom m y guns and bulletproof vests burst into the office. They occupied all the room s and blocked the exits. The FSB investigators, w ho cam e w ith them , produced an adequate w arrant and spent the next six hours searching the editorial office. Work w as paralysed. The detectives ransacked the papers and even opened the crim inal departm ent safe w ith a special saw. Finally, the detectives arrested the authors of the articles and confiscated a stack of papers and the hard disks from several com puters and left, telling nothing about the purpose of their im prom ptu visit to the shocked journalists.

What a com m otion this started! The night after the search Z vezda journalists held an urgent press conference. All local m ass m edia unanim ously reported about it and the new spaper itself (a respectably quiet and provincial one before these 162

T HE EYE O F THE STO RM

events) becam e a bright and open freedom of speech tribune w ith the greatest readers’ rating in the region.

But it w as just the start of the pursuit. Som e tim e later, after num erous interrogations, Konstantin Bakharev, one of the authors, had to give a w ritten undertaking not to leave the city. They accused him of divulging details of the investigation, and absolutely did not take into consideration that the journalists had not m ade up both stories but they had learned them from FSB sources.

This is the conclusion arrived at by experts from the Center for Journalism in Extreme Situations of the Russian Union of Journalists (Moscow ) after their visit to the Zvezda editorial office: “After a meeting w ith the staff and the editor-in-chief one w ould never doubt that the position of the new spaper is an open one. It is evident that the staff w ere indignant about the actions of the special service against student Vitalii Nikolayev. The fact that FSB officials fabricated proof and gave the case a political slant brought about an understandable w ish to tell the public about those fabrication mechanisms. This is w hy the article “A Black Deal” w as published. As a result of it, the charges raised against the student of robbery and inciting interethnic dissension w ere dropped. The day after the article w as published the court sentenced Vitalii Nikolayev to a small suspended term of imprisonment for “Ruffianism”. Thus, Zvezda prevented FSB from profiting from its pseudo-struggle w ith extremism.

The journalist com m unity w as being torn apart by doubts.

The notorious “corporate solidarity” did not exactly m aterialize. Som e, w ithout hesitation, rushed to help their colleagues in trouble. Som e did not m iss an opportunity to m ock at Z vezda, saying “it serves you right”. The m ajority, as often still happens in the form er USSR, kept a frightened silence.

Later journalists found out that sim ilar searches and arrests w ere carried out sim ultaneously in several other cities, in particular in the editorial offices of the Moscow new spaper ANDREY KALIKH

163

Versiya and Guberniya (Petrozavodsk). And then they tried to find a link w ith real events in the country.

At the beginning of Novem ber 2002, people w ere still in a state of shock after the hostage dram a in Moscow ’s N ord-O st m usical. Disappointm ent and criticism replaced the trium ph after the theatre had been successfully taken over by special team s. A num ber of questions are still pending and the authorities are reluctant to offer exhaustive answ ers. How w as it possible for the terrorists to enter Moscow, w hich is flooded w ith m ilitiam en and servicem en, and to take explosives and guns w ith them ? Why did so m any hostages die during the storm and w hat w as the gas that the special units em ployed? It is all still sw athed in an atm osphere of inexplicable secrecy.

But the journalists w ere doing their job. They w ere asking officials and generals unpleasant and uneasy questions, and, as it turns out, they w ere given untruthful or incom plete answ ers.

In order to deflect criticism, the authorities resorted to their “old w orld” w ays: they placed all the blam e for the failures of the storm on the m ass m edia. They used as a pretext the live interview s w ith the terrorists, and accused the media of show ing the preparation for the storm on one of the central channels.

The authorities exerted trem endous pressure on journalists. The Press Minister M. Lesin announced that the terrorists used som e of the m ass m edia for propaganda purposes. The authorities found an excellent opportunity to take revenge for investigation, criticism and disclosure.

They assaulted m ass m edia all over Russia. In the regions, w here such events are a rare occurrence, the accusation of journalists m et w ith enthusiasm . The experts from the Center for Journalism in Extrem e Situations associate the Z vezda case w ith the general atm osphere after the terrorist attack: “The FSB w as eager to use it as a m eans to intim idate local new spapers in connection w ith the events in the Dubrovka theatre centre, and for preparing the background for adopting new 164

T HE EYE O F THE STO RM

repressive am endm ents to the Law on Mass Media. FSB took advantage of that.” If there w as little logic and reason in FSB’s actions, one thing w as obvious: their w ish to m ake use of the post-crisis atm osphere in the country to rem ind everyone that they w ere still there, still pow erful and that one still had good cause to be afraid.

In late 2002, both Cham bers of Parliam ent passed am endm ents to the Law on Mass Media, w hich constrained journalists in covering em ergency events. In fact, those am endm ents substantively constrained the rights of the press and m ade it m ore dependent on the authorities. The editors of m ajor m ass m edia m anaged to convince President Vladim ir Putin to veto the am endm ents. He recom m ended that journalists w ork out their behaviour code in em ergency situations them selves.

The Z vezda story had a sequel. After the storm ing of the editorial office in Novem ber the reporters w ere repeatedly sum m oned for interrogation, and the investigators kept checking their papers and docum ents. Eventually, they found a culprit – a certain junior m ilitia officer – w ho, they alleged, leaked the inform ation to the press. Both the journalists and the experts have one m ore reason to believe that the FSB m ade good use of the scandal: in this w ay they m anaged to divert the public’s attention from the fact that their specialists could not keep secrets.

In March of 2003, the investigation of that case w as over.

At the tim e of w riting this article, the case papers had been subm itted to the court and to the accused. The scandal started to subside by itself, and Perm gradually returned to its state of perm anent dorm ancy.

O ne of m y m ajor responsibilities in the O ffice of the O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media has been to help to prepare a sm all book, in Russian, about the so-called “Spiegel affair”. This case took place 40 years ago. In O ctober 1962, the ANDREY KALIKH

165

Germ an m agazine Der Spiegel, w hich is published in Ham burg, printed an investigative article about the terrible state of the West Germ an arm y. The article concluded that West Germ any w as absolutely unprepared for a surprise attack by the Warsaw Treaty forces, and that the Bundeswehr w ould not hold out for even a w eek. Furtherm ore, the article disclosed the secret plans of Germ any’s Minister of Defence to purchase nuclear w eapons for the Bundeswehr, “just in case”.

Several days after the article w as published the editor’s office w as storm ed by police. The editor-in-chief and the chief publisher Rudolf Augstein w ere arrested. The police searched both the editor’s office and the journalists’ apartm ents.

The Ministry of Defence charged the edition w ith disclosing m ilitary secrets and accused the journalists and the publisher Augstein of high treason. How ever, in fact, all this concerned the w ounded personal am bitions of the Minister of Defence, w ho longed to take revenge on the m agazine for continuous and objective criticism . There could not have been a better case.

The public took the side of the assaulted m agazine. A lot of people cam e to the gates of the prison w here Augstein had been placed to express their protest tow ards the restriction of freedom of the m edia.

It w as ordinary people’s participation in the Spiegel affair that turned the tables. After statem ents and discussions on the freedom of the press all over the country and tough debates in parliam ent, the publisher and the journalists w ere released from prison. They w ere cleared of the charge of high treason.

It w as the Minister of Defence Strauss w ho had to resign.

In that case, dem ocracy w on. The people m anaged to defend not only their favourite m agazine, but also their freedom of speech. This case prom oted the dem ocratization of post-w ar Germ any.

166

T HE EYE O F THE STO RM

There is m uch in com m on betw een the tw o events described above. The sam e com plicated period after dictatorship – Hitler in Germ any and com m unism in Russia. Sim ilar accusations and m ethods w ere used. The only difference is the subsequent events.

The fam ous edification of the first post-w ar Germ an social dem ocratic Chancellor Willy Brandt “Don’t be afraid of dem ocracy!” refers to us as w ell. So our first task is to release ourselves from the fear of freedom , as the state of dorm ancy only postpones the onslaught of disease, but does not actually save us from it.

ANDREY KALIKH

167

IV. O verview – What We Have D o ne

Mandate of the O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media

Repo rts and Statements to the O SCE Perm anent Council and O ther O SCE Fora

Repo rt o n the Media Situatio n in Chechnya Jo int D eclaratio n by O SCE, UN and O AS London, 10 December 2002

Pro jects 2002/ 2003 •

Freedom of the Media and Corruption Fourth Central Asian M edia Conference, Tashkent, 26-27 Sept. 2002

•

Freedom of the Media and the Internet Workshop, Vienna, 30 N ovember 2002

•

Public Service Broadcasting: New Challenges, New Solutions M eeting, Ljubljana, 10-11 M arch 2003

•

War: Im ages and Language – Coverage of Conflicts in the Media, 1991-2003 Round Table with UN IS, Vienna, 17-18 M arch 2003

•

Media in Multilingual Societies Conference, Bern, 28-29 M arch 2003

•

Freedom of the Media and the Internet Conference, Amsterdam, 13-14 June 2003

•

Principles for Guaranteeing Editorial Independence Round Table, Berlin, 16 July 2003

•

Media in Multicultural and Multilingual Societies Fifth Central Asian M edia Conference, Bishkek, 17-18 Sept. 2003

•

Libel and Insult Law s Conference, Paris, 24-25 N ovember 2003

Visits and Interventio ns in 2002/ 2003

Mandate o f the O SCE Representative o n Freedo m o f the Media PC.DEC No. 193 O rganization for Security and Co-operation in Europe 5 Novem ber 1997 137th Plenary Meeting PC Journal No. 137, Agenda item 1 1. The participating States reaffirm the principles and com m itm ents they have adhered to in the field of free m edia. They recall in particular that freedom of expression is a fundam ental and internationally recognized hum an right and a basic com ponent of a dem ocratic society and that free, independent and pluralistic m edia are essential to a free and open society and accountable system s of governm ent. Bearing in m ind the principles and com m itm ents they have subscribed to w ithin the O SCE, and fully com m itted to the im plem entation of paragraph 11 of the Lisbon Sum m it Declaration, the participating States decide to establish, under the aegis of the Perm anent Council, an O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media. The objective is to strengthen the im plem entation of relevant O SCE principles and com m itm ents as w ell as to im prove the effectiveness of concerted action by the participating States based on their com m on values. The participating States confirm that they w ill co-operate fully w ith the O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media. He or she w ill assist the participating States, in a spirit of co-operation, in their continuing com m itm ent to the furthering of free, independent and pluralistic m edia.

2. Based on O SCE prin ciples an d com m itm en ts, th e O SCE Represen tative on Freedom of th e M edia w ill observe relevan t m edia developm en ts in all participatin g States an d w ill, on th is basis, an d in close co-ordin ation w ith th e Ch airm an -in -O ffice, advocate an d prom ote full com plian ce w ith O SCE prin ciples an d com m itm en ts regardin g freedom of expression an d free m edia. In th is respect h e or sh e w ill assum e an early-w arn in g fun ction . He or sh e w ill address serious problem s caused by, inter alia, obstruction of m edia activities an d un favourable w orkin g con dition s for journ alists. He or sh e w ill closely co-operate w ith th e participatin g States, th e Perm an en t Coun cil, th e O ffice for D em ocratic In stitution s an d Hum an Righ ts (O D IHR), th e High Com m ission er on Nation al M in orities an d, w h ere appropriate, oth er O SCE bodies, as w ell as w ith n ation al an d in tern ation al m edia association s.

T HE M AND ATE

171

3. The O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media w ill concentrate, as outlined in this paragraph, on rapid response to serious noncom pliance w ith O SCE principles and com m itm ents by participating States in respect of freedom of expression and free m edia. In the case of an allegation of serious non-com pliance therew ith, the O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media w ill seek direct contacts, in an appropriate m anner, w ith the participating State and w ith other parties concerned, assess the facts, assist the participating State, and contribute to the resolution of the issue. He or she w ill keep the Chairm an-in-O ffice inform ed about his or her activities and report to the Perm anent Council on their results, and on his or her observations and recom m endations.

4. The O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media does not exercise a juridical function, nor can his or her involvem ent in any w ay prejudge national or international legal proceedings concerning alleged hum an rights violations. Equally, national or international proceedings concerning alleged hum an rights violations w ill not necessarily preclude the perform ance of his or her tasks as outlined in this m andate.

5. The O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media m ay collect and receive inform ation on the situation of the m edia from all bona fide sources. He or she w ill in particular draw on inform ation and assessm ents provided by the O DIHR. The O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media w ill support the O DIHR in assessing conditions for the functioning of free, independent and pluralistic m edia before, during and after elections.

6. The O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media m ay at all tim es collect and receive from participating States and other interested parties (e.g. from organizations or institutions, from m edia and their representatives, and from relevant NGO s) requests, suggestions and com m ents related to strengthening and further developing com pliance w ith relevant O SCE principles and com m itm ents, including alleged serious instances of intolerance by participating States w hich utilize m edia in violation of the principles referred to in the Budapest Docum ent, Chapter VIII, paragraph 25, and in the Decisions of the Rom e Council Meeting, Chapter X. He or she m ay forw ard requests, suggestions and com m ents to the Perm anent Council, recom m ending further action w here appropriate.

7. The O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media w ill also routinely consult w ith the Chairm an-in-O ffice and report on a regular basis to the Perm anent Council. He or she m ay be invited to the Perm anent Council to present reports, w ithin this m andate, on specific m atters related to freedom of expression and free, independent and 172

O VERVIEW â&#x20AC;&#x201C; W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

pluralistic m edia. He or she w ill report annually to the Im plem entation Meeting on Hum an Dim ension Issues or to the O SCE Review Meeting on the status of the im plem entation of O SCE principles and com m itm ents in respect of freedom of expression and free m edia in O SCE participating States.

8. The O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media w ill not com m unicate w ith and w ill not acknow ledge com m unications from any person or organization w hich practises or publicly condones terrorism or violence.

9. The O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media w ill be an em inent international personality w ith long-standing relevant experience from w hom an im partial perform ance of the function w ould be expected. In the perform ance of his or her duty the O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media w ill be guided by his or her independent and objective assessm ent regarding the specific paragraphs com posing this m andate.

10. The O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media w ill consider serious cases arising in the context of this m andate and occurring in the participating State of w hich he or she is a national or resident if all the parties directly involved agree, including the participating State concerned. In the absence of such agreem ent, the m atter w ill be referred to the Chairm an-in-O ffice, w ho m ay appoint a Special Representative to address this particular case.

11. The O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media w ill co-operate, on the basis of regular contacts, w ith relevant international organizations, including the United Nations and its specialized agencies and the Council of Europe, w ith a view to enhancing co-ordination and avoiding duplication.

12. The O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media w ill be appointed in accordance w ith O SCE procedures by the Ministerial Council upon the recom m endation of the Chairm an-in-O ffice after consultation w ith the participating States. He or she w ill serve for a period of three years w hich m ay be extended under the sam e procedure for one further term of three years.

13. The O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media w ill be established and staffed in accordance w ith this m andate and w ith O SCE Staff Regulations. The O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, and his or her O ffice, w ill be funded by the participating States through the O SCE budget according to O SCE financial regulations. Details w ill be w orked out by the inform al Financial Com m ittee and approved by the Perm anent Council.

14. The O ffice of the O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media w ill be located in Vienna.

T HE M AND ATE

173

Interpretative statement under paragraph 79 (Chapter 6) o f the Final Reco mmendatio ns o f the Helsinki Co nsultatio ns By the delegation of France: â&#x20AC;&#x153;The follow ing Member States of the Council of Europe reaffirm their commitment to the provisions relating to freedom of expression, including the freedom of the media, in the European Convention on Human Rights, to w hich they are all contracting parties.

In their view, the O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media should also be guided by these provisions in the fulfilment of his/her mandate.

O ur countries invite all other parties to the European Convention on Human Rights to subscribe to this statement.

Albania Germ any Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Denm ark Spain Estonia Finland France United Kingdom Greece Hungary Ireland Italy

174

O VERVIEW â&#x20AC;&#x201C; W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

Latvia Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxem bourg Malta Moldova Norw ay Netherlands Poland Portugal Rom ania Slovak Republic Slovenia Sw eden Czech Republic Turkey

Repo rts and Statements to the O SCE Permanent Co uncil and O ther O SCE Fo ra

Statement at the Permanent Co uncil o f 23 May 2002 Today m y O ffice is presenting its sixth country report, this one on the m edia situation in Turkm enistan. My O ffice has previously published reports on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Croatia, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine and Georgia. All w ere w ritten by outside experts.

Turkm enistan, as far as I can see, is the only m em ber of the O SCE w here currently m edia freedom , in the basic understanding of the w ording of m y m andate, is non-existent. To quote from the report itself: “Turkm enistan is a country w here the notion of freedom of the m edia has not undergone any real changes since the days of the Soviet regim e. Furtherm ore, in the course of the entire decade since the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the Turkm en governm ent has carried out a deliberate policy of subjecting all of the nation’s m edia to the interests of building their totalitarian state.”

It is om inous that for the first tim e since I took up the position of the O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, I am not at liberty, and I w ould like to stress – for security reasons – to provide to the public the nam es of the experts that helped prepare this report.

These are the conditions that journalists, w ho tried or are still trying to m ake a difference, have to w ork under. For an organization that claim s to be a fam ily of dem ocracies such a situation can only be described as com pletely unacceptable.

I w ould also like to point out that the Governm ent of Turkm enistan is the only one am ong the Central Asian States that has basically ignored the Central Asian Media Conferences that w e have held in the region for the past three years. The Governm ent has never given m y O ffice an explanation on this m atter.

The report clearly states that any recom m endations to the Governm ent of Turkm enistan regarding changes in the m edia field m ay only be m ade w ithin the larger context of a global and fundam ental change in the State’s attitude tow ards freedom of speech, in the context of adhering to the entire spectrum of international hum an rights.

REPO RTS AND STATEMENTS

175

As you know, m y O ffice is currently in the process of developing several m edia projects in som e Central Asian States. How ever, I do not see any possibility to get involved in sim ilar w ork in Turkm enistan before there is a substantial change in the attitude of the leadership of Turkm enistan to freedom of expression.

To continue on Central Asia: I w ould like to stress that w ith great interest I learned of the decision by the Governm ent of Uzbekistan to close dow n the official censorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s office, especially in light of the statem ent that President Islam Karim ov m ade recently adm itting that the reality in his country w here all m edia w ere heavily state-controlled left a lot to be desired. I w ill continue m onitoring developm ents in this O SCE participating State and hope that the latest change w ill influence the state of the m edia in Uzbekistan for the better.

O verall, I plan to pay m ore attention to m edia freedom in the Central Asian countries. In addition to Turkm enistan, this year m y O ffice w ill issue reports on the m edia in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. All five reports w ill be published for public distribution as I have done w ith several previous ones. Just to underline the seriousness of the m edia situation in som e of these countries: yesterday, in just one day, in Kazakhstan tw o m edia outlets w ere objects of violence. The office of an independent new spaper Respublika Delovoye O bozreniye w as burned dow n. The offices of the SolDat new spaper in Alm aty w ere raided by unknow n assailants w ith tw o journalists being badly beaten and equipm ent stolen. I have already intervened on previous cases of harassm ent of both new spapers and I do expect the authorities in Kazakhstan to thoroughly investigate these incidents and to ensure a safe environm ent for the m edia.

I w ould also like to use this opportunity to thank the Bosnian authorities for finally agreeing to m y proposal of exactly tw o years ago to renam e a street in Sarajevo after Kurt Schork, an Am erican journalist w ho w orked throughout the w ar in Bosnia and Herzegovina and w as killed in 2000 in Sierra Leone.

Tw o m ore item s I w ould like to raise w ith you. First the good new s, w hich m any of you w ill appreciate: I do not plan to end m y term in office until 31 Decem ber 2003. Now the bad new s for som e: I do not plan to end m y term in office until 31 Decem ber 2003.

176

O VERVIEW â&#x20AC;&#x201C; W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

Statement at the Permanent Co uncil o f 6 June 2002 (Under Current Issues)

This w eek, am id grow ing tensions in Asia, a regional security sum m it has taken place in Alm aty. We all appreciate the leading role Kazakhstan is playing in these very tense m om ents regarding peace in Asia. In this regard, the m ore im portant the international role of our participating States becom es, the m ore necessary it is that basic hum an rights, in particular freedom of expression, should continue being in the centre of dem ocratic developm ent and m ust not be pushed aside by any governm ent. Here the O SCE institutions have very clear concepts in line w ith their m andates.

Tw o w eeks ago, w hen I presented the report on the m edia situation in Turkm enistan, I announced m y intention of issuing m edia reports about all the five Central Asian States in the near future. O n Kyrgyzstan, I have taken note of the recent Presidential Decree repealing Decree 20 of January 2002. This could be a positive step tow ards im proving the freedom of the m edia situation in Kyrgyzstan and w e w ill be follow ing the developm ents closely. Today I am presenting to you the seventh country report by m y O ffice, focusing on m edia in Kazakhstan.

The report before you highlights the m ain concerns of m y O ffice w ith regard to m edia in Kazakhstan. The situation has consistently deteriorated in the near past. The last m onths have seen a series of attacks on m edia, including closures of a num ber of m edia outlets.

The latest incidents include the raiding of the offices and the assault of tw o journalists of the SolDat new spaper and the fire-bom bing of the office of Delovoye O bozreniye Respublika.

Since then, the latter new spaper has been closed dow n by court ruling for failing to correctly provide publication data such as the print house address and circulation. Tan TV is still off the air after its technical equipm ent w as dam aged several tim es in the last m onths.

The authorities in Kazakhstan m ust thoroughly investigate these and other incidents presented in the report and do m ore to ensure a safe environm ent for the m edia.

I w ould urge the Governm ent of Kazakhstan to look into the recom m endations of the report and request the assistance of the O SCE and other international actors in addressing the problem s. A range of REPO RTS AND STATEMENTS

177

m edia projects can be developed and im plem ented from these recom m endations by m y O ffice as w ell as the O SCE Centre in Alm aty.

Last year in Decem ber m y O ffice organized the Third Central Asian M edia Conference in Alm aty. We are grateful for the co-operation of the Kazakh authorities in this endeavour.

We also hope for active participation by the Kazakh journalists, as w ell as other journalists in the region, in the Fourth Conference w hich w ill be organized in Tashkent in Septem ber 2002.

My O ffice is also currently looking for funding by the participating States for this im portant project.

178

O VERVIEW â&#x20AC;&#x201C; W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

Repo rt to the Permanent Co uncil o f 20 June 2002 This is m y second regular report to the Perm anent Council this year.

Unfortunately, it is becom ing a recurring feature that I feel obliged to begin w ith condolences on the occasion of yet another m urder of a journalist in the O SCE region. This tim e I w ould like to extend m y condolences to the fam ilies and friends of tw o m urdered journalists in Russia: Valeriy Ivanov from Togliatti and Alexander Plotnikov from Tyum en. Valeriy Ivanov w as a leading journalist and chief editor of the local new spaper Tolyatinskoye O bozreniye that w as w ell know n for its coverage of local organized crim e, drug trafficking and corruption. Alexander Plotnikov w as one of the founders of the m ajor advertising new spaper in Tyum en, Siberia. I understand that investigations have been launched in both cases and I hope to receive m ore inform ation at a later stage from the Russian authorities.

I w ould like to bring to your attention an attack on freedom of expression in Belarus: the startling fact that in this one participating State there is an openly-discussed list of literary w riters w ho, in a very brutal w ay, are identified as authors w ho should not be published and read. Som ething unheard of in Europe in years.

In a m id-May m eeting w ith reporters in Minsk, Eduard Skobelev, editor-in-chief of the Presidential Adm inistration’s new s bulletin, urged state-controlled literary m agazines not to publish w riters critical of the Governm ent, listing am ong those he term ed “politically retarded”, the w ell-know n Belarusian w riters Vasil Bykov, Ryhor Baradulin, Nil Gilevich and Sergei Zakonnikov.

Several independent Belarusian w ebsites have published in recent days som e striking statem ents on this m atter by the editor-in-chief of the journal N eman, Nina Chaika, w ho w as recently nam ed editor by President Lukashenko. In an interview in Belorusskaya Gazeta, Chaika declared that she w ill not allow Vasil Bykov to be published in N eman until he w rites som ething about the present situation in the country w hich w ould be acceptable to the authorities. She gave a specific reference of an acceptable author and w ork in the interview and said: “…the fact that the brilliant w riter (Bykov) w ent into politics is his personal tragedy. And the tragedy of the Belarusian nation is that w ith his involvem ent in politics he deprived us of his w orks … I hope that Vasil Vladim irovich (Bykov) has enough talent to stick to today, see tom orrow and forget w hatever happened yesterday.”

REPO RTS AND STATEMENTS

179

This form ation of a list poses a dram atic challenge, unacceptable in an O SCE participating State. In m y opinion, intellectuals and w riters express their view s on the profound occurrences taking place in a country. And in Belarus, w hich is undergoing so m any historical changes, w riters of all types can contribute significantly to a better civil understanding w ithin their nation.

Now on our activities: I w ould like to inform you here orally on m y strategy regarding the Internet and on how I plan to develop a project dealing w ith the global inform ation space. The w ritten part of the report, w hich I w ill not read out, provides you w ith an overview of som e of the cases m y O ffice has m onitored in our participating States as w ell as of our other projects.

O n the tw o Belgian journalists m entioned in that part w ho w ere fined for refusing to reveal their sources, I am glad to report that the court has repealed its sentence, and confidentiality of journalistic sources is being respected.

I w ould like to turn to a topic on w hich w e w ill focus in the second half of this year: the Internet. It is an infrastructure w hich is becom ing increasingly im portant throughout the w orld for all kinds of com m unication, inform ation and its distribution. Major new spapers and broadcasting services are not the only m edia to publish their contents online. The num ber of genuine electronic new spapers and w ebcast radio stations is rising. Many journalists rely on the Internet as a source for research and gathering inform ation.

Independent Internet new spapers provide people w ith non-biased inform ation in tim es of conflict. There are m any libraries, archives and encyclopaedias online. New s, pictures, film s, essays and virtually everything else can be exchanged via the Internet. In short, inform ation from m any different sources could be available for everybody.

But it seem s on e can n ot take th e good w ith out th e bad. Un fortun ately, h ate speech an d propagan da can be foun d on th e In tern et as w ell. Regrettably, th ere are h an dbooks for guerrillas or even m an uals about h ow to build bom bs on th e In tern et. Even ch ild porn ograph y, th e m ost abh orren t crim e, is accessible. Not th at easily, but it can be foun d.

O n the one hand, it cannot be denied that the Internet m ade such access easier and above all m ore anonym ous. O n the other hand, propaganda and illegal content form only a very sm all fraction of w hat is available on the Internet. O ne m ust rem em ber that terrorism existed long before relevant subversive inform ation becam e available online.

180

O VERVIEW â&#x20AC;&#x201C; W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

Although there is a sm all am ount of illegal and intolerable content on the Internet, the benefits outw eigh the risks by far, and not only statistically. The Internet itself is a unique infrastructure for the free flow of inform ation, w hich is essential for dem ocratic societies.

Thus, denying access to the Internet or over-regulating its contents is som ething that cannot be accepted.

Com bating terrorism m ust also not be used as a justification for censorship of any m edia including the Internet. O nce m ore I w ould like to stress that there is no excuse or exculpation for acts of terror, hatred or child abuse. But the fight against crim e and terror cannot be w on by the bow dlerization or suppression of the Internet or, for that m atter, any other m edia. The free flow of inform ation, ideas and know ledge is one of the m ost im portant w ays to strengthen tolerance and peace.

O f course there are som e obstacles restraining this platform of free expression. First of all the technical infrastructure m ust be sufficient to fulfil this role. In the O SCE region there are still large areas in South-Eastern and Eastern Europe and in Central Asia w ith few Internet connections. To change this situation the existence of a telephone or even broadband Net is not the only requirem ent. Besides com puters and m odem s, independent Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are needed to enable connection to netw orks.

O nce the technical problem s are solved, youths and adults everyw here need to develop the com petence to participate in the digital w orld. Training program m es should be offered tailored to individual skills. Internet cafés and libraries could provide m ore help. Talking about the “digital divide” does not only m ean the gap betw een different countries and regions but also betw een people w ithin one region.

In conclusion, there are a num ber of im portant fields for future activity. First of all the free flow of inform ation on the Internet has to be guaranteed. In the sam e w ay as w ith the “old m edia”, on the World Wide Web censorship and discrim ination but also hate speech and propaganda have to be fought. The Internet provides a unique platform for free expression and individual contribution and every effort m ust be m ade to preserve this freedom and to foster cultural diversity at the sam e tim e.

Secondly the “global village” m ust be taken to the villages. And it is not only the technology and the infrastructure that has to be brought there. Both technical and textual com petence have to be developed, too. Many different institutions are needed for this developm ent: schools, universities, m edia, fam ilies, w orkshops, sem inars, REPO RTS AND STATEMENTS

181

Internet cafés and libraries, etc. Close co-operation betw een international organizations, NGO s and the respective countries is necessary. The first tw o could m ainly provide hardw are and training program m es to achieve technical com petence. O n the other hand, education, as an integrative and cohesive social factor, largely rem ains a task of states and governm ents. But a concerted effort is needed in order to w ork against the digital divide and for freedom of expression and m edia.

In a Joint Declaration on Challenges to Freedom of Expression in the New Century issued in London on 20 Novem ber 2001 by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of O pinion and Expression, the O AS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and by m yself w e stated that: • The right to freedom of expression applies to the Internet, just as it does to other com m unication m edia; • The international com m unity, as w ell as national governm ents, should actively prom ote universal access to the Internet, including through supporting the establishm ent of inform ation com m unication technology (ICT) centres; • States should not adopt separate rules lim iting Internet content.

My O ffice w ill organize a w orkshop on the Internet in Vienna this autum n and a larger conference in 2003, and w ill form ulate som e practical guidelines. An O SCE handbook for the Internet w ill be published and an Internet Café Project w ill be planned for som e countries.

First, one general concern: m any of the cases of m edia harassm ent that I report to you happen in the capitals of our participating States, except for a few cases that m y O ffice has dealt w ith, such as the fate of O lga Kitova in Belgorod, Russia, and that of Irina Khrol, an editor in Crim ea, Ukraine. That is w hy I plan to try to take a closer look at the situation in the provinces in Eastern Europe and the form er Soviet Union, focusing on m edia and corruption, political and financial pressure on the m edia, and also on a tendency of fostering ethnic intolerance in som e of the regions. Here I can m ention, for exam ple, Zadar in Croatia, w here cases of intolerance against m inorities are reported in the local m edia, especially against returning refugees.

Again on Belarus: the crim inal trial of tw o journalists from the independent new spaper Pagonya resum ed on 4 June in Grodno in w estern Belarus after several postponem ents. I have m entioned this pivotal case previously in several Reports to the Perm anent Council.

182

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

The independent journalists concerned, Nikolai Markevich and Pavel Mozheiko, could face up to five years in prison under Belarus’s Crim inal Code w hich contains severe provisions regarding defam ation and insult. I repeat m y firm convictions that: • Journalists should not be prosecuted or face prison for w hat they w rite; • Any conflicts should be resolved in a civil, not a crim inal court; • Libel should not be used to clam p dow n on those w ho consider them selves in opposition to the current governm ent; • Heads of State should not receive undue protection from m edia reporting on their activities.

My O ffice has consistently spoken out about the distressing state of freedom of expression in the Republic of Belarus, unacceptable in an O SCE participating State. For additional details about the extent to w hich Belarus lim its press freedom , I com m end to your attention several recent, professional analyses by international m edia NGO s on the situation in Belarus, including Reporters sans frontières: A Status Report on Attacks against Freedom of the Press in Belarus and Article 19’s Belarus: Instrument of Control: A Collection of Legal Analyses of Freedom of Expression Legislation. Both studies w ere published in April 2002.

O ne issue that m y O ffice has not really addressed but that does com e up in m any of our participating States is that of the confidentiality of a journalist’s source of inform ation. Som e reporters end up in jail and others are fined for refusing to reveal to a court of law their sources. Just recently, in Belgium tw o journalists from the daily De M orgen w ere ordered on 29 May by a Brussels court to pay 25 euro for every hour they continued refusing to reveal their sources for an article on the Belgian State Railw ays (and that it had overshot its budget to build a new high-speed train station in Liège by 250 m illion euro.) Confidentiality of journalists’ sources is a key principle of freedom of the m edia and should be respected. I plan to start taking a closer look at these cases in our region.

As you already know, m y O ffice is focusing on Central Asia in the near future. Tw o m edia reports on Turkm enistan and Kazakhstan have already been issued, and reports on the other three countries w ill follow suit in the next few m onths. I am still looking forw ard to receiving the relevant legislation for review from Turkm enistan as has been proposed by the delegation here several w eeks ago. The preparations for the Fourth Central Asian M edia Conference in Septem ber are also going ahead as planned. I w ould like to use this opportunity to again ask for financial contributions to fund this very im portant event.

REPO RTS AND STATEMENTS

183

For the first tim e an adviser from m y O ffice visited Arm enia, w here he m et w ith governm ent officials (from the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Justice), parliam entarians, journalists and representatives from the NGO com m unity. My adviser focused on the general m edia situation in Arm enia as w ell as on tw o specific cases: the TV com panies N oyan Tapan that w as taken off the air last year, and A1+ that lost its licence this April. Although, in general, freedom of the m edia does exist in Arm enia, several w orrying developm ents have raised som e questions regarding the Governm entâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s com m itm ent to the fundam ental right of freedom of expression.

A1+ w as the only broadcaster that basically provided air-tim e to all parties and m ovem ents in the highly politicized clim ate that exists in Arm enia: opposition leaders, intellectuals, journalists w ere able to speak and debate on A1+. Now this television station, one of the m ost popular in the country, is off the air and has been replaced by nothing. According to several experts, including Shavarsh Kocharyan, the Chairm an of the Standing Com m ittee on Science, Education, Culture and Youth Affairs of the National Assem bly, that also dealt w ith m edia m atters, A1+ lost its licence (although an existing broadcaster, it had to bid for its ow n frequency after its licence expired) in violation of several provisions of the Law on Television and Radio Broadcasting. The com pany that w on the licence, Charm, has not yet started broadcasting and under current legislation, can w ait for six m onths after receiving its licence to start doing so. As a result, a popular TV station is no longer on air. The public reacted w ith anger to this closure and one of the largest dem onstrations in recent years w as held in Yerevan in defence of A1+. The TV station has already unsuccessfully challenged its case in courts and m ay w ell go to the European Court of Hum an Rights in Strasbourg.

What can be done to rectify this situation?

First, I believe that the Arm enian Governm ent should conduct a new tender for existing and non-used frequencies, that could be held as soon as possible, preferably this sum m er, and A1+ and N oyan Tapan should be encouraged to participate. For the tim e being, the authorities can easily introduce an am endm ent to the current Law allow ing a TV com pany that has lost its licence to continue broadcasting until the new licensee is ready to replace it.

Second, the Law on Radio and Television should be am ended.

Here the Council of Europe is actively involved in providing counselling and m y O ffice w ill also look at w ays to assist the Governm ent and the National Assem bly in this endeavour.

184

O VERVIEW â&#x20AC;&#x201C; W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

Third, the current draft Media Law, that is being discussed publicly, should be thoroughly analysed by international experts before being subm itted to the National Assem bly for approval.

O ne of the representatives of the NGO com m unity stressed to m y adviser that “If the governm ent is allow ed to get aw ay w ith closing dow n A1+, it w ill then start pressuring the print m edia. They are next.” For the sake of Arm enia and hum an rights in that country, I hope his pessim istic prediction w ill not becom e reality. And it is up to the authorities to prove him w rong.

I still look forw ard to receiving som e positive new s regarding the legal review of Ukrainian m edia legislation conducted jointly by m y O ffice and the Council of Europe. I hope that the recom m endations m ade by our experts w ill be taken on board by the new ly elected parliam ent (Verhovna Rada).

In m id-March of this year I intervened w ith Minister of Foreign Affairs Igor Ivanov of the Russian Federation concerning the m urder of Russian reporter Natalya Skryl as w ell as tw o cases of libel facing th e in depen den t n ew spaper N ovaya G azeta. Th is in terven tion resulted in a useful exchange of letters w ith the Minister of Inform ation Mikhail Lesin. The Minister assured m e of his deep outrage w hen Russian journalists such as Skryl and others are m urdered and of his appeal to the Minister of Internal Affairs requesting better protection for journalists and special attention to different kinds of crim inal activities against them .

Minister Lesin also assured m e that his Ministry is closely m onitoring the law suits against N ovaya Gazeta and doing “…everything necessary so as to provide for the full realization of freedom of expression in Russia.”

How ever, I am still concerned about the fate of N ovaya Gazeta, a new spaper w hich has had a critical and independent stance. O n 7 June Moscow Court bailiffs seized the new spaper’s financial docum ents as a first step in confiscating the new spaper’s property. The plaintiff is Mezhprom bank w hich w on dam ages of a sum so high that it m ay exceed by m any tim es the total sum that the Russian m edia w as ordered to pay for suits in all of 2001. If the bailiff fully enforces the decision to levy this punitive fine against N ovaya Gazeta before it can appeal the verdict, the editor-in-chief has said that the paper w ill have to close. This w ould be the second Russian new spaper in recent w eeks to suspend publication, the other being O bshchaya Gazeta at the end of May. This is yet another exam ple of how detrim ental to freedom of expression are both the high level of punitive fines and the am biguous law s that claim to protect honour and dignity.

REPO RTS AND STATEMENTS

185

The O SCE Mission to Croatia has offered its assistance to the Governm ent regarding m edia legislation and, as I understand, the Ministry for European Integration asked the O SCE to provide such assistance. I discussed this m atter w ith the Head of Mission, Am bassador Peter Sem neby, and m y O ffice is currently looking for suitable experts w ho w ill assist the Governm ent in drafting the relevant changes. We w ill specifically focus on a new Law on Media (the first draft is expected in autum n 2002). This project w ill be funded from our regular budget (Legal Assistance Fund). I also understand that the Governm ent of Croatia seem s to be com m itted to introduce new changes to the Law on Telecom m unication by the end of the year. O ur expert review ed this Law last Novem ber and I believe that his recom m endations should be taken into account by relevant Croatian authorities.

O n the form er Republic of Yugoslavia: the long-aw aited new m edia law s have not yet been passed by the Serbian Assembly. The (ninth version of the) draft Act on Broadcasting, supported by the O SCE and the Council of Europe, has been approved by the Governm ent and passed to parliam en t for discussion an d approval. It is curren tly bein g review ed. The draft Act on Telecom m unications, although ready, has not been presented to parliam ent for approval, w hich is necessary to start the licensing process of the private electronic m edia.

O ther relevant pieces of legislation (Act on Freedom of Inform ation; Act on Access to Public Inform ation; Act on Advertising) are still in a very early stage of drafting and public discussion. They are unlikely to be com pleted and approved by the Serbian Governm ent before autum n. The slow pace of legislative reform is keeping Serbian private electronic m edia under serious constraint, preventing them from planning, investing and expanding their operations.

The O SCE-supported transform ation of Radio Television Serbia (RTS) is proceeding at a fast pace, w ith significant im provem ent in the editorial content and organizational structure.

As regards the general situation of the m edia, no significant violations of journalistsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; rights and freedom s are being reported. How ever, there is an increase in the num ber of law suits and trials against m edia outlets or individual journalists for alleged libel or slander.

O ften the plaintiffs are form er Socialist Party officials, m anagers of state-ow ned and private com panies protected by the Milosevic regim e and, in a few instances, current political leaders.

I am proud to present to you the fourth yearbook of m y O ffice that has been distributed to you today. It includes several interesting contributions, including articles on the effects of the tragic events of 11 Septem ber on the m edia.

186

O VERVIEW â&#x20AC;&#x201C; W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

Regular Repo rt to the Permanent Co uncil o f 10 O cto ber 2002

This is m y third regular report to the Perm anent Council this year. I begin m y quarterly statem ent w ith condolences on the occasion of yet another m urder of a journalist in the O SCE region. Unfortunately, it is becom ing a recurring feature; actually this is the third tim e in a row.

A British reporter died in Ingushetia in the Russian Federation.

Journalist and cam eram an Roddy Scott w as w orking for the Frontline Freelance Television Agency. There are conflicting reports as to the circum stances of his death. O n this sad occasion I ask the British delegation to forw ard m y condolences to the fam ily and friends of the deceased. For your inform ation the death toll am ong m edia staff this year is already m ore than 50 w orldw ide, according to the International Federation of Journalists.

Usually, before raising a case in m y quarterly report I address it directly w ith the governm ent concerned or under â&#x20AC;&#x153;current issuesâ&#x20AC;? in this forum . How ever, the deeply shocking nature of the violent attack against a group of journalists in Georgia com pels m e to speak out on this m atter today. I received inform ation on this case just last w eek.

O n 27 Septem ber about 30 Georgian police officers took part in a violent attack on a popular, independent television station in the w estern tow n of Zugdidi. The break-in took place a few hours after the O dishi station had broadcast criticism of the local police force, specifically a Rustavi-2 report w hich detailed an assault by police officers on dem onstrators. During the attack, the police beat several journalists and destroyed video and com puter equipm ent.

Eyew itnesses said the attackers included local senior police officers. After the attack on the O dishi station, four policem en w ent to the hom e of journalist Em a Gogokhia, a regional correspondent for the independent station Rustavi-2, and threatened to kill her entire fam ily.

Not finding her at hom e, the police officers beat her m other and 10-year-old son and attem pted to kidnap the boy. Neighbours intervened and prevented the kidnapping but heard the police officers w arn that if a story Gogokhia w as w orking on w as aired, they w ould send the m other her daughterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s severed head and that her body w ould never be found.

REPO RTS AND STATEMENTS

187

I understand that President Eduard Shevardnadze has requested an investigation into this vicious attack against press freedom . I support an urgent and thorough investigation into this m atter.

Now on som e of our activities: I w ould like to inform you here orally on the issues w e dealt w ith in Central Asia, Ukraine and Moldova. The w ritten part of the report, w hich I w ill not read out, provides you w ith an overview of cases m y O ffice has m onitored in our participating States as w ell as of our other projects.

The Fourth Central Asian M edia Conference, held on 26-27 Septem ber in Tashkent, w as again, as the previous conferences, a successful and productive event. The interaction betw een the one hundred journalists from the region created possibilities for furthering co-operation am ong them . We w ill be presenting new project proposals in the near future that w e hope w ill be received favourably by potential funders.

How ever, the frank discussions during the sessions show ed the seriousness of the m edia situation in the region. Num erous exam ples w ere presented to illustrate the grave problem s.

In the Central Asian countries, all of them being participating States of a com m unity, the O SCE, that describes itself as a fam ily of dem ocracies, the tendency tow ards oppression is very clear. My O ffice has dealt w ith m any cases of m edia harassm ent in the region.

I do not expect the situation to change dram atically for the better in the nearest future. The state of affairs in Turkm enistan is still the m ost alarm ing: one of practically total control has deteriorated even further w ith subscriptions to foreign new spapers not having been delivered since m id-July as w ell as the shutting dow n of cable transm issions.

Som e positive developm ents have been noted recently, m ost notably the dropping of crim inal charges against the Tajik journalist Dododjon Atovulloev and the issuing of licences to three independent radio stations in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, as w ell as the banning of official censorship in Uzbekistan. How ever, I encourage the five Central Asian States to do m ore, m uch m ore, to ensure that they are fully in line w ith relevant O SCE com m itm ents their governm ents had signed.

The first task m ust be to guarantee the physical safety of journalists w ho are being harassed and attacked in the region at a frightening frequency. O ne of the m ost recent cases w as the beating of Sergei Duvanov, a journalist from Kazakhstan, just before his departure to the Hum an Dim ension Im plem entation Meeting in Warsaw in Septem ber. Duvanov w as lucky, he w as able to participate both in the m eeting in Warsaw as w ell as in our conference in Tashkent. Unfortunately there are m any instances w ith the opposite result.

188

O VERVIEW â&#x20AC;&#x201C; W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

The them e of this year’s conference w as corruption. The sessions focused on the problem s journalists’ face w hen trying to uncover instances of corruption and w hat m easures can be taken to im prove investigative reporting. And, frankly speaking, individual exam ples highlighted in the presentations by journalists w ere appalling. And m ore situations are occurring regularly. O n his w ay back hom e, one of the participants at the conference w as beaten up by border guards and the m essage given to him w as to w arn all journalists about the potential hazards of w riting about corruption.

The fundam ental role of the m edia as a w atchdog is irreplaceable in society, especially w ith regard to investigating the grow ing danger of corruption, a serious obstacle for all States both in the East and in the West. The journalists at the conference adopted the Tashkent Declaration on Freedom of the M edia and Corruption and m y O ffice w ill be looking at w ays to address this issue in the future.

The sessions at our conference confirm ed the findings of the m edia reports m y O ffice has issued on the five Central Asian States.

Tw o of the reports have been discussed in this forum earlier and the three rem aining ones w ere distributed to all the delegations a m onth ago. All reports provide country-specific recom m endations to the governm ents on w hat can be done to im prove the situation. O ur O ffice and the O SCE field presences in the region stand ready to assist in im plem enting m uch-needed changes.

In Ukraine recently m y O ffice together w ith the Council of Europe, the Verhovna Rada (Ukrainian Parliam ent) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs conducted a sem inar dealing w ith the review of tw o m edia-related law s. This is part of an ongoing project in Ukraine w here w e have provided several legal review s w ith specific recom m endations. How ever, these recom m endations are still not im plem ented and I hope that the Verhovna Rada w ould once again look at them w ith a view to taking them on board.

I w ould also like to stress m y continued concern w ith the general m edia situation in Ukraine.

With alarm I read the com m ents by Nikolai Tom enko, the Head of the Parliam entary Com m ittee on Freedom of Expression, w ho stressed on 1 O ctober in a letter to President Kuchm a that the “level of political censorship has substantially increased since the appointm ent of Victor Medvedchyk [as Head of the President’s Adm inistration.]” Tom enko and other Com m ittee m em bers m et w ith m y adviser tw o w eeks ago and inform ed him of the m any obstacles that exist for independent m edia. This tendency w as underlined also in the M anifest by Ukrainian REPO RTS AND STATEMENTS

189

Journalists on Political Censorship signed by several m edia professionals on 3 O ctober that stated that “Political censorship dem eans the dignity of journalists and of the Ukrainian people.”

O f especial concern to m y O ffice is the recurring practice by the President’s Adm inistration to issue instructions to the m edia on how to cover different new s events. My O ffice has been provided w ith a copy of one of these instructions from early Septem ber w hich, for exam ple, recom m ends that several new sw orthy item s should be ignored by journalists. This practice, although officially denied, is com pletely unacceptable in a participating State that considers itself a dem ocracy and should be abolished.

I w ould also like to stress that over tw o years have passed since the disappearance and subsequent m urder of Ukrainian editor and journalist Georgiy Gongadze. This case is w ell know n so I w ill not go into the details, just to reiterate: I am still w aiting for a com prehensive report on w here the investigation stands and w hen w e can expect progress in bringing to justice the perpetrators of this crim e.

Moldova. In Septem ber m y O ffice conducted an assessm ent visit to this country. Although this O SCE participating State still enjoys relative freedom of expression, certain recent tendencies raise concerns.

O ne of the m ajor issues is the new ly adopted law on transform ing the state com pany Teleradio M oldova into a public broadcaster. Both the Council of Europe and m y O ffice are concerned that its provisions leave room for political influence on the editorial policy of Teleradio M oldova. I understand that several statem ents w ere m ade by parliam entarians that they w ould look into changing the provisions regulating the appointm ent of the broadcaster’s Adm inistrative Council, a m ajor concern.

A general rem ark: In m y previous statem ent I spoke at length about the situation in Arm enia, today I am raising Moldova. During m y tenure as the O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media both these countries w ere considered the “poster boys” for freedom of expression in the form er Soviet Union. Now it is clear that certain w orrying developm ents initiated by the authorities are encroaching on this basic hum an right. A tendency all too clear in som e other participating States and one that needs to be reversed. Here, once again, I appeal to the governm ents to ensure full adherence to O SCE com m itm ents in the m edia field that you have signed. And I m ean full com pliance and not just a pick and choose approach that seem s to be the current tendency.

190

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

Statement at the Permanent Co uncil o f 24 O cto ber 2002 (Under Current Issues)

Today I w ould like to open w ith som e good new s. The m onopoly of the centralized state Internet provider UzPAK has been abolished last w eek. I w elcom e that initiative of the Uzbek Governm ent to lift restrictions on Internet access.

I w as only the m ore surprised to hear that on his w ay back to Kyrgyzstan from the Fourth Central Asian M edia Conference, w hich took place in Tashkent on 26-27 Septem ber, one of the participants at the conference w as beaten up by Uzbek border guards. The m essage given to him w as to w arn all journalists about the potential hazards of w riting about corruption. During the assault, reference w as m ade to articles w ritten by Mr. Alisher Sayipov, a Kyrgyz journalist for Voice of America, w ho has been reporting on the corruption of Uzbek custom officers.

It saddens m e especially as the them e of the conference this year w as freedom of the m edia and corruption, a highly topical and challenging subject for all O SCE participating States.

I w ould like to reiterate the necessity of guaranteeing the safety and integrity of journalists w riting about controversial and necessary topics in the entire O SCE region.

REPO RTS AND STATEMENTS

191

Statement at the Permanent Co uncil o f 31 O cto ber 2002 (Under Current Issues) I am deeply concerned about the arrest of Mr. Sergei Duvanov, a prom inent Kazakh journalist, on Sunday 27 O ctober 2002 in Alm aty for alleged rape.

Mr. Duvanov participated in the Fourth Central Asian M edia Conference in Tashkent just a few w eeks ago, w here the m edia situation, especially w ith regards to corruption, w as discussed in a very open m anner. It is the first tim e that a journalist w ho has participated in one of our Central Asian Media Conferences has subsequently faced direct harassm ent.

I have also intervened on Mr. Duvanov’s behalf tw ice in the recent past. In July 2002 Mr. Duvanov w as charged w ith crim inal libel for “infringing the honour and dignity of the President”. In August 2002 Mr. Duvanov w as severely attacked and beaten right before he w as due to travel to Warsaw to attend the O SCE Hum an Dim ension Im plem entation Meeting. I am deeply concerned that all these incidents together result in a pattern of harassm ent against Mr. Duvanov w hich is connected to his activity as an opposition journalist.

I urge the Kazakh authorities to conduct a thorough, transparent and speedy investigation into Mr. Duvanov’s case.

192

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

Regular Repo rt to the Permanent Co uncil o f 12 D ecember 2002 This is m y fourth regular report this year to the Perm anent Council.

As previously, I have divided it into tw o parts: an oral one regarding som e of our m ore pressing concerns and a w ritten one that focuses on the cases m y O ffice has dealt w ith as w ell as on our project w ork.

Since I last spoke here tw o m onths ago, a dram atic and tragic event happened in Moscow : the hostage taking in the theatre and the subsequent rescue operation. Som e of the Russian m edia referred to it as â&#x20AC;&#x153;O ur 11 Septem berâ&#x20AC;?. All of us grieve for the victim s and their fam ilies.

What concerned m y O ffice w as the fallout from these events against the m edia. Initially, several restrictive am endm ents to the Media Law and to the Law on Com bating Terrorism passed through both houses of the Russian Parliam ent. My O ffice im m ediately com m issioned a legal review that w as conducted by experts from Article 19. A review w as also done in Moscow by Mikhail Fedotov, a leading Russian m edia expert.

Both review s reached sim ilar conclusions that basically the am endm ents w ere highly restrictive. That is w hy I w elcom ed the decision by Russian President Vladim ir Putin not to sign these am endm ents into law and to send them back to parliam ent. I also w elcom e the Presidentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s proposal that the journalists them selves should play an active role in drafting am endm ents to the Media Law. With great interest I follow ed the open and public debate on the handling of the hostage crisis w hich once again show ed that Russia is developing into a pluralistic society open to different, often opposing, view s. How ever, several cases of m edia harassm ent have also m ade it clear that there is still a lot of w ork ahead in strengthening dem ocratic aw areness and dem ocratic institutions in Russia including the free press.

In a 20 Novem ber letter to Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov I drew the attention of the authorities to several w orrying developments: on 3 Novem ber, in a press release, I underscored m y concern about the appearance of increased pressure on Russian media, using the search by Russian security officers of the Moscow w eekly new spaper Versiya as an exam ple. Subsequently, new spaper editorial offices in Perm , Petrozavodsk and Voronezh, papers know n for criticizing local authorities, have undergone extensive searches by local security officials.

REPO RTS AND STATEMENTS

193

In the last tw o w eeks, there have been som e additional incidents in the regions of Russia w here the w ork of journalists appears to have been im peded: a police search of a new spaper in Krasnoyarsk, a new spaper director beaten in Prim orye Kray, a search by econom ic crim e officers of editorial offices of a television channel and of a new spaper in Balakhov, an arrest of the editor-in-chief of a popular independent daily in Kovrov and an arrest by the city departm ent of internal affairs of a TV film crew in Irkutsk. My O ffice has additional details about these cases and w ill continue to m onitor them closely.

I am also concerned about the threat contained in a letter from one of the Russian diplom atic representatives in Berlin to the head of the Germ an ARD television channel com plaining about its coverage of the hostage crisis.

In m y first report to the O SCE Perm anent Council after the events of 11 Septem ber, I stressed that terror m ust not kill freedom in general and freedom of expression in particular.

There w ere som e w orrying developm ents at that tim e in the United States in w hich national security m atters took priority and unfortunately even squeezed out certain civil liberties. I did not hesitate to speak out at that tim e and I do not hesitate to speak out now regarding Russia, another participating State.

The urge to clam p dow n on basic freedom s under the pretext of “ensuring national security interests” is a phenom enon that is universal and can plague governm ents in the East and in the West. That is w hy the need to be vigilant never passes.

I m ay be repetitive, but I think it is w orth repeating: hum an rights should not be sidelined because of the global threat from crim inal terrorists, w ho of course exist. We should be very clear: those w ho preach religious extrem ism , if they are allow ed to prevail, w ill ensure that not even a sem blance of freedom of expression exists in the countries they m ay control. Afghanistan, am ong several others, is a classic and very tragic exam ple.

We m ust also rem em ber, that these extrem ists in their use of terror tactics are trying to force us, this declared fam ily of dem ocracies that is called the O SCE, to stoop to their level, to act in the sam e w ay as they w ould. We should rise to this challenge and show these groups and individuals w ho preach terror that w e w ill not sidetrack our hum an rights’ values, even under the difficult circum stances of the global fight against terrorism .

I hope these are the lessons, am ong others, that w e learned from 11 Septem ber and the hostage taking in Moscow. Freedom is too 194

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

precious a com m odity to be m ortgaged even for the illusionary safety net called “national security”.

I w ould like to raise here one final point dealing w ith an O SCE participating State: Turkm enistan. I understand that a Russian journalist Leonid Kom arovsky w as arrested on 26 Novem ber allegedly in connection w ith the recent attack against the country’s President.

How ever, I h ave very little in form ation on th is case an d w ould like to ask th e delegation of Turkm en istan to clarify th e details of h is deten tion . An y arrested journ alist is of m ajor con cern to m y O ffice. I also un derstan d th at m an y oth er people h ave been arrested. I w ould like to un derlin e th at Turkm en istan is still a m em ber of th is organ ization th at prides itself on bein g a fam ily of declared dem ocracies. In th is “declared dem ocracy” th e m edia are curren tly bein g used to h um iliate an d terrorize an ybody w h o is even rem otely con tem platin g th e legitim acy of th e curren t state of affairs. Som e of th e television program m es I h ave been in form ed about rem in d m e of th e sh ow trials on Soviet radio an d in th e n ew spapers durin g th e th irties. Th e brutality is of th e sam e level but th e m edia provide, especially television , for a m uch m ore ch illin g effect. As on e of th e h eads of a h um an righ ts in stitution of th e O SCE, I believe it is h igh tim e to con duct a special session of th e Perm an en t Coun cil on Turkm en istan w h ere all th e th ree h eads of in stitution s an d th e h ead of our Cen tre can in form th e delegation s on th e situation in th e coun try an d its h um an righ ts record. I w ould also en courage in vitin g speakers from Turkm en istan w h o represen t n ot on ly th e govern m en t side.

This is m y proposal to the current and follow ing chairm anships.

O n cases: In O ctober, m y attention w as draw n to a piece of draft legislation proposed in the City-State of Ham burg in Germ any. It w ould have allow ed the authorities to survey using optical and acoustic devices the activities of journalists w ho m ay have com e into contact – even w ithout being aw are of it – w ith a suspicious person or a possible crim inal offender, regardless of w hether or not any charges have been brought against the journalists.

In a letter to the Germ an Minister of Foreign Affairs, I pointed out that a law in a Germ an State that w ould underm ine the principle of guaranteeing journalistic sources the protection of the law w ould be in gross violation of O SCE com m itm ents subscribed to by Germ any.

Meanw hile I received an answ er from the Germ an Federal Governm ent assuring m e that a vivid pluralistic debate has been triggered REPO RTS AND STATEMENTS

195

off by that draft legislation, as is good practice in a parliam entary dem ocracy. The governm ent of the City-State of Ham burg in turn has thanked m e for m y contribution to the political debate in that State. It assured m e that the law revision just passed by the Ham burg Parliam ent takes into account the concerns that I had expressed, and that m y reservations have been taken care of.

In Arm enia, I am still concerned regarding the state of affairs around the tw o independent TV stations: N oyan Tapan and A1+. Follow ing a court decision in favour of N oyan Tapan on 2 Decem ber, I hope that the tender for five frequencies can proceed quickly so that during the upcom ing presidential elections and the preceding cam paigns these tw o respected channels w ill be operational.

O n a different m atter, Arm enian freelance journalist Mark Grigorian suffered serious shrapnel w ounds to the head and chest from a grenade throw n at him as he w alked through the centre of the country’s capital, Yerevan. The attack happened on 22 O ctober and our colleagues from the O SCE Centre report that his health condition is still not good, he has a num ber of fragm ents from the grenade in his body. I expect the authorities to conduct a thorough investigation into this attack against a professional journalist.

The 25 Novem ber detention of Irada Huseynova, a correspondent for the Azerbaijan w eekly Bakinsky bulvar, in Moscow by Russian m ilitiam en at the offices of the Russian Union of Journalists’ Center for Journalism in Extrem e Situations, w here she w as w orking, prom pted m e to intervene w ith the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan. Ms. Huseynova had been charged w ith “insulting the honour and dignity” of Baku Mayor Hajibala Abutalibov and faced possible extradition to Azerbaijan and a possible sentence for crim inal defam ation charges.

The next day Ms. Huseynova w as released from the Butyrka detention facility apparently in accordance w ith Russian legislation w hich does not allow for im prisonm ent for “libel and insult”. She is now back at w ork at the Center for Journalism in Extrem e Situations.

I w ould like to reiterate m y position: no journalist should be sentenced to prison for w hat he or she w rites, and in a dem ocracy, w riting about the activities of public servants is part of a journalist’s professional duties. It is m y firm belief that no special protection should be afforded to public officials w ho should exercise a greater level of tolerance tow ard criticism than ordinary citizens.

The Azerbaijani Editors Union sent m e an appeal on 4 Decem ber signed by 13 editors representing independent and opposition 196

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

m edia. The editors request m y intervention due to w hat they have determ ined is “… a defam atory cam paign against non-governm ent m edia” launched by the official press, and use of governm ent-controlled courts to harass non-state m edia through defam ation suits.

The Azerbaijani Editors Union has inform ed m e that in 2002 so far 31 suits have been filed against various m edia and journalists in the country. In O ctober-Novem ber 2002, a total of 14 libel suits have been filed, including 8 against one opposition new spaper alone, Yeni M usavat, and these could be used to close dow n the paper, to confiscate its property and to bring crim inal charges against its ten em ployees. I am requesting urgent clarification on these m atters from the Azerbaijani authorities.

Th e un h ealth y state of m edia freedom in th e Republic of Belarus con tin ues, un fortun ately, to produce n ew victim s. A very youn g, M in sk-based in depen den t n ew spaper M yestnoye vremya (The Local Times), foun ded in O ctober an d able to publish on ly th ree issues, w as closed by th e Belarusian In form ation M in istry on 27 Novem ber for reason s con cern in g its ren tal space, reason s w h ich th e Belarusian Association of Journ alists h as said are legally groun dless.

I am con cern ed th at th is is yet an oth er act of “structural cen sorsh ip” in Belarus an d part of an on goin g govern m en t cam paign to silen ce critical voices, especially in th e run -up to th e M arch 2003 local election s.

Furtherm ore, the situation in Belarus concerning the virtual closing of the O SCE Advisory and Monitoring Group has brought m e reluctantly to the conclusion that this is not the proper tim e to sponsor an international conference organized around the fam ous Voltaire quotation: “I m ay disagree w ith w hat you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it,” w hich I had planned for March 2003 in Minsk.

In Kazakhstan, m y O ffice together w ith O DIHR has repeatedly called for an im partial investigation and access to the trial of Sergei Duvanov, an independent journalist w ho w as arrested on 27 O ctober for alleged rape of a m inor. Just w eeks before his arrest, Duvanov w as an outspoken participant at the Fourth Central Asian M edia Conference in Tashkent. The num ber of incidents involving Duvanov trigger concerns of a pattern of harassm ent against him .

I have also asked for clarification about the investigation concerning the death of Nuri Muftakh, an opposition journalist and co-founder of Respublika 2000 w ho died as a result of a hit-and-run accident on 17 Novem ber.

REPO RTS AND STATEMENTS

197

O n Ukraine: My O ffice continues to be concerned w ith m edia developm ents in this participating State, w here I have spent enorm ous efforts over the past four years on m onitoring developm ents and providing assistance. I spoke in detail on our project w ork in m y last quarterly report in O ctober.

Since then, another Ukrainian journalist w as found dead, the circum stances surrounding this tragedy still m urky. I have asked the authorities to provide m y O ffice w ith additional inform ation regarding the recent discovery in Belarus of the body of Mikhailo Kolom iets, head of the Ukrainian new s agency Ukrainski N ovyny.

Kolomiets disappeared on 21 O ctober and his new s agency reported him missing on 28 O ctober. Ukrainian Interior Minister Yuri Smirnov announced the discovery of Kolomiets’s body on 18 November in Belarus, hanging from a tree in a forest near the tow n of Molodeshno.

An official of the Ukrainian m inistry, Volodym yr Yevdokim ov, told the m edia that it w as clearly a case of suicide unconnected to the journalist’s w ork. How ever, I w ould appreciate a m ore detailed report on the investigation and I do hope to receive it in a reasonable tim e fram e w hich w as not (and still is not) the case w ith the investigation into the Gongadze m urder.

O n 4 Decem ber parliam entary hearings on the m edia situation in Ukraine w ere held in Kiev under the headline “Freedom of Expression and Censorship”. An official from the O ffice of the O SCE Project Co-ordinator in Ukraine, w ho attended the hearings, inform ed m y O ffice of the debate. I understand that the discussions w ere very open, w ith different, often even opposing view s stressed. O verall, the speakers, deputies and m edia professionals, w ere very critical of the current state of affairs in the country, m any of them underlining that although de jure censorship did not exist, de facto it w as very m uch present. I look forw ard to continuing w orking closely w ith officials and journalists in Ukraine, and, hopefully, w e w ill be able to rectify the situation through our joint efforts.

O n projects: O n 28 Novem ber 2002 I invited m edia analysts and experts from Germ any, France and Israel to attend a w orkshop organized by m y O ffice in Vienna. The aim of the w orkshop w as to identify a possible project on the m edia situation in the Mediterranean Partners for Co-operation of the O SCE (Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Morocco, and Tunisia).

As I m entioned in m y opening rem arks at the w orkshop, the deterioration of the situation for the m edia in the six O SCE Partners for Co-operation could have a direct negative im pact on the m edia 198

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

situation in som e O SCE participating States. I am confident that there m ust be w ays to address the lack of freedom of the m edia in the Mediterranean region, even though the O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have a direct m andate to intervene.

During the last few m onths m y O ffice has been involved in a num ber of legal initiatives in the O SCE region. Media legislation has been review ed in Arm enia (draft law on m edia), Russia (am endm ents to the m edia law ) and Tajikistan (all m edia legislation). In Croatia, an international expert is assisting the authorities in drafting and review ing legislation on Croatian TV and Radio, HRT. The review s of the draft m edia law in Transdniestria and the Moldovan draft law on broadcasting are underw ay.

O n 16-17 Decem ber 2002, a sem inar in Dushanbe w ill gather both local and international experts to discuss the legal situation concerning the m edia. Both the legal review com m issioned by m y O ffice as w ell as the proposal for a new law on m edia, drafted by a w orking group in Tajikistan com m issioned by the RFO M, w ill be discussed.

We hope that this sem inar w ill be the next step in the dialogue and process that w ill result in bringing the Tajik m edia legislation into line w ith international standards on freedom of expression and m edia.

As a follow -up to the Fourth Central Asian M edia Conference, m y O ffice is currently w orking closely together w ith the O SCE Centres in Central Asia on several project proposals, especially Internet cafĂŠs for journalists in the region.

Freedom and Responsibility: M edia in M ultilingual Societies: Pointing out the constructive role m edia could and should play in com bating discrim ination, prom oting tolerance and building stable peace in m ultilingual societies, this project w ill aim to overcom e prejudices and intolerance in the m edia against citizens w ho are m em bers of m inorities.

The project w ill investigate the practical w orking environm ents of the m edia in som e O SCE participating States: Sw itzerland, Luxem bourg, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Southern Serbia), form er Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and Moldova. At the end of the project country reports w ill be produced. A concluding conference, w hich w ill take place in Sw itzerland in March 2003, w ill sum m arize the results and identify the need and desire for m ore projects. We are grateful for the financial support of the Sw iss Governm ent to this project.

In its second year (from 17 March until 15 Novem ber) the project mobile.culture.container visited the follow ing cities: Mostar, Banja Luka (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Skopje and Bitola (form er Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), Mitrovica (Kosovo) and Novi Pazar (Serbia).

REPO RTS AND STATEMENTS

199

Along w ith ongoing discussions w ith young people about their future and the future of the region, different w orkshops and evening events, this year the mobile.culture.container concentrated on developing youth new spapers. In 2001 school new spapers w ere founded in Cacak, Gorazde and Visegrad. Further new spapers w ere established in 2002 in Mostar, Stolac, Blagaj, Banja Luka, Jajce, Skopje and in Mitrovica, extending the existing netw ork. A m eeting of the m em bers of the editorial team s in Novem ber 2002 helped further strengthen co-operation. Participants in the video and radio w orkshops w ere also able to present their achievem ents through public broadcasts on local radio and TV stations.

The decision for the mobile.culture.container to visit Mitrovica in Kosovo w as of especial im portance. During its five w eeks this project brought together young Albanians and Serbs from both parts of the city, for exam ple w ith the help of its radio w orkshop. The tw enty participants in this w orkshop broadcast in Kosovo their ow n bilingual program m e (in Albanian and Serbian) for four hours daily, six days a w eek. They called them selves Radio Future. Another exam ple is the Mitrovica youth new spaper Future published in both languages (circulation: 2,000 copies).

The experiences of the past tw o years helped develop how this project could continue in 2003. In the future the mobile.culture.container w ill operate as a m edia container w ith the youth new spaper netw ork being at the centre of its activities.

O n 30 Novem ber 2002, I held a w orkshop on Freedom of the M edia and the Internet in Vienna. The w orkshop featured six experts from Europe and the United States w ho contributed to a discussion about the possibilities and challenges the new inform ation and com m unication technologies pose to freedom of expression and freedom of the m edia in the O SCE region. The participants of the w orkshop included experts from UNESCO , the Council of Europe, online m edia, Internet service providers, and from specialized NGO s as w ell as scholars and advisers from m y O ffice.

This w orkshop had been a preparatory event for a conference on Freedom of the M edia and the Internet that is intended to provide a broader context for a public debate on the challenges to freedom of expression and freedom of the m edia posed by the new inform ation and com m unication technologies. The conference w ill be organized by m y O ffice and w ill take place in Am sterdam , the Netherlands, in spring 2003. I w ould like to extend m y sincere gratitude to the Dutch Governm ent for the financial support it has provided for this w orkshop.

200

O VERVIEW â&#x20AC;&#x201C; W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

Statement at the Permanent Co uncil o f 16 January 2003 (Under Current Issues)

The last tim e I took the floor to address this Council, I drew attention to the abuse of the TV m ass m edia in Turkm enistan to hum iliate and destroy those individuals w ho w ere accused of taking part in an alleged m urder attem pt. This practice, utilizing propaganda m ethods from the Stalin years, is continuing. Live show s are staged on television that broadcast the confessions of the accused, num erous condem nations are reported, all of them dem anding the death penalty for the accused as had happened during the show trials in the 1930s in the Soviet Union. For your additional inform ation, I am distributing today excerpts from the broadcast on Turkm enistan television of the Session of the People’s Council (sim ilar to an upper house of a parliam ent) that consisted basically of tw o events m ixed into one: a “debate” on the m urder attem pt and of taped confessions m ade by the accused.

The rhetoric used is often obscene and in m ost countries w ould be unprintable. Racist speech is also present: here is a quote from the President of an O SCE participating State, Turkm enistan, w ith reference to one of the leaders of the opposition Boris Shikhm uradov: “His blood is diluted w ith the blood of a different nationality. Previously, to m ake Turkm en w eaker their blood w as diluted. Where the true blood of our ancestors is m ixed w ith other blood their national spirit is low.”

In Kazakhstan, I am follow ing the trial of Sergei Duvanov (he participated in the Fourth Central Asian M edia Conference in Tashkent last year.) I have intervened on Mr. Duvanov’s behalf before. This tim e he is accused of having a sexual relationship w ith a m inor. I w ill follow this case very closely and expect that the rule of law w ill be upheld and that the trial w ill be fair. I also reserve the right to send an observer from m y O ffice if I deem it to be necessary to m onitor the case and I expect this person to receive full access to the court proceedings.

In Kyrgyzstan, I once again raise the situation around M oya Stolitsta. I understand that several senior officials have accused this new spaper of “presenting a distorted picture of the political situation in the country” and of “an anti-Kyrgyz bias”. Sim ilar view s w ere expressed in the pro-governm ent new spaper Vecherniy Bishkek. In REPO RTS AND STATEMENTS

201

addition, I w as inform ed that over a dozen law suits had been filed against M oya Stolitsta in 2002, m any of them by state officials.

I have raised the dire situation around M oya Stolitsta on several occasions, both in letters to the Foreign Minister and in statem ents to the O SCE Perm anent Council. In early 2002, the state-ow ned publishing house Uchkun had refused to print M oya Stolitsta, a m atter also raised by m y O ffice. I w ill continue follow ing the plight of M oya Stolitsta closely and expect the Governm ent to put an end to a cam paign of harassm ent of this new spaper.

202

O VERVIEW â&#x20AC;&#x201C; W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

Regular Repo rt to the Permanent Co uncil o f 13 March 2003 Before going into m y regular report I w ould like to start w ith a current issue: the case of im prisoned journalist Sergei Duvanov in Kazakhstan. Mr. Duvanov, sentenced earlier this year to 3,5 years in prison, had appealed his sentence. The appeals hearing w as held on 11 March. All international observers w ere not allow ed into the courtroom , the judge decided to hold a closed session. Am ong those w ho are m onitoring the case are tw o experts from the Netherlands, our current Chairm an-in-O ffice, and I am very grateful to the CiO for responding so quickly and positively to requests to help defend an im prisoned journalist.

The appeal of Sergei Duvanov w as denied. More so, the alleged crime that he w as sentenced for w as changed to a harsher one although the prison term w as left unchanged. I have follow ed Duvanovâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s case since the beginning and on several occasions, together w ith O DIHR, raised m y concerns in reference to procedural irregularities in the trial.

A refusal to allow international experts access to the trial, including those from the O SCE Centre w ho w ere planning to observe the case on m y behalf, raises even m ore questions regarding rule of law in Kazakhstan and the declared independence of the judiciary. I w ill continue m onitoring the case closely and expect the authorities in Kazakhstan to ensure that during future court sessions international experts w ill be allow ed to follow the proceedings.

Now, to m y regular report, m y first quarterly in m y last year in O ffice as the O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media. As before, m y presentation is divided into tw o parts: oral and w ritten.

Let m e start by focusing in this oral part on a situation m any of us know w ell: dem ocracies and their m edia at a tim e of arm ed conflict.

First, on the transatlantic debate that is currently underw ay regarding Iraq. Increased political tensions som etim es tend to lead to biased reporting, or to quote from Paul Krugm an from the N ew York Times to a â&#x20AC;&#x153;great trans-Atlantic m edia divideâ&#x20AC;?. There is a continued need for journalists to be responsible and objective, w ithout succum bing in their professional w ork to biased nationalism .

There are tw o positive developm ents that the public debate in the US related to balancing national security concerns w ith civil liberties has triggered: I took note of the Am erican Screen Actors Guild REPO RTS AND STATEMENTS

203

statem ent issued on 3 March stressing that the entertainm ent industry m ust not blacklist people w ho speak out against w ar w ith Iraq.

“Som e have recently suggested that w ell-know n individuals w ho express ‘unacceptable’ view s should be punished by losing their right to w ork […] Even a hint of the blacklist m ust never again be tolerated in this nation,” reads their statem ent. I com pletely agree w ith the position of the Guild and its proactive approach.

In this forum I already spoke regarding Section 215 of the US Patriot Act that allow s FBI agents to dem and from any bookstore or public library its records of the books or tapes a custom er has bought or borrow ed. I understand that Representative Bernie Sanders of Verm ont is preparing a bill in the House of Representatives repealing Section 215. I highly w elcom e this initiative.

O ne of the issues I have follow ed and dealt w ith at length concerns protection of journalists in tim es of w ar. Here, m ore can be done. Every conflict w e have recently seen, be it Kosovo, Afghanistan, or Sierra Leone has increased the num ber of reporters killed in action.

Any future conflict m ay again exacerbate the already sad statistics w e report every year. That is w hy I continue to stress the need for governm ents, their arm ies, international peacekeeping forces to provide, w hen and w here possible, logistic, m edical and technical support to journalists.

The NGO com m unity is doing a lot to help, including publishing valuable training m anuals. The Com m ittee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has just issued a Journalist Safety Handbook that provides a w ealth of inform ation on training courses; protective gear; health insurance; on m inim izing risk in conflict zones; and on em bedding w ith com batants. This handbook is a valuable m anual for hundreds if not thousands of reporters w ho usually descend into a w ar zone.

For exam ple, sim plifying access procedures to areas of conflict keep the journalists from looking for m ore “unorthodox” m ethods to get to the place w here the action is, also saving lives. The invitation by the Pentagon to em bed over 200 new s organizations, including about 100 foreign ones, w ith US troops is a start if this is done correctly and does not include intrusive pressure to influence the editorial line of the m edia concerned.

Here, I tend to agree w ith the CPJ that “Whether or not to em bed w ith any arm ed forces is a trade-off in nearly every case. A prim ary advantage of em bedding is that a journalist w ill get a firsthand, frontline view of arm ed forces in action. A disadvantage is that journalists w ill only cover that single part of the story. There are other trade-offs 204

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

as w ell. Em bedded journalists run the risk of being m istaken for com batants. This is especially true if journalists w ear m ilitary uniform s w hen em bedding. If journalists are not em bedded w ith troops and m ove about independently on the battlefield, they could find them selves being targeted by com batants on all sides of the conflict.” To em bed or not to em bed is a question every journalist m ust decide for him /herself w ithout any undue pressure. He or she w ill be in the area covering hostilities and it should be his or her call. Whatever happens in Iraq and the region as a w hole, I fear that the m atter of dem ocracies at w ar w ill continue being w ith us. That is w hy on som e issues w e can try to develop best practice policies that are then follow ed or at least taken into account once a new crisis erupts. Policies that have w orked in the past and m ay w ork in the future.

This year is the year of projects for m y O ffice. They cover them es such as Freedom of the Media and the Internet, Freedom and Responsibility: Media in Multilingual Societies, The Im pact of Media Concentration on Professional Journalism , and various others.

In the w ritten part of m y report I give a broader overview of these projects. My O ffice is ready to provide you w ith additional inform ation on all the projects that w e are involved in.

In Croatia, on 1 March a bom b destroyed the vehicle of Nino Pavic, an independent new spaper publisher. Pavic, along w ith Germ any’s WAZ m edia group, is the co-ow ner of Europapress Holding (EPH), Croatia’s largest new spaper publisher. A num ber of journalists at EPH’s w eekly Globus w ere threatened after a series of articles about the crim inal activities of several Mafia groups w ere published during the last few m onths. The police have initiated a crim inal investigation into the bom bing and are also exam ining the threats m ade against Globus journalists. I am very m uch im pressed by the w ay the local authorities handled this case and I hope to receive additional inform ation on the ongoing investigation. O ne thing that I have stressed on m any occasions concerns the “corrective function” of the m edia especially related to investigations along the lines of w hat is being published by Globus. Such attacks, if they are not treated w ith all the seriousness they deserve, m ay have a chilling effect on investigative journalism and in the end underm ine the country’s econom ic developm ent.

In Spain, Euskaldunon Egunkaria, a Basque daily new spaper based in the northern tow n of Andoain, w as closed by orders of the judge on 20 February because of alleged links to the arm ed terrorist group ETA. The paper reappeared on new s-stands the next day under the REPO RTS AND STATEMENTS

205

new nam e Egunkaria. I also understand that hundreds of Civil Guard police officers raided the offices of Euskaldunon Egunkaria and the hom es of its senior staff throughout the Basque region after a court ordered the paper’s closure. I w ill continue m onitoring this case.

In Uzbekistan, I have approached the authorities w ith concern about four journalists w ho have encountered legal difficulties in February. Gayrat Mehliboev, a reporter on religious issues for the new spapers Khuriyat and M okhiyat, w as sentenced on 18 February 2003 to seven years im prisonm ent for supporting the banned Hizb-ut-Tahrir Islam ic group and thereby underm ining the country’s constitutional order. I am especially w orried that inform ation from one of his articles had been used against him during the trial. Three other journalists, Tokhtom urad Toshev, O leg Sarapulov and Ergash Bobojanov, have recently been detained. I w elcom e the inform ation provided by the Foreign Minister of Uzbekistan that these journalists have now been released; how ever, I am still expecting further inform ation on the status of pending investigations into their activities.

In the Russian Federation I am follow ing the circum stances surrounding the closure of N oviye Izvestia by its m ajor shareholder. Without going into the business details of the conflict, I w ould like to stress that it is om inous that only m edia outlets that are critical of the Governm ent run into “problem s” w ith shareholders. N oviye Izvestia w as a vocal defender of individual hum an rights in Russia and a staunch critic of governm ent abuse. Led by one of the m ost respected Russian editors, Igor Golem biovsky, it becam e a true bastion of hope for m any w ho cam e to its offices looking for help. It publishes no m ore. My O ffice is in contact w ith N oviye Izvestia; its staff is currently looking at possible alternatives.

In Turkm enistan, I am very m uch appalled by the new ly adopted definition of “treason” in this O SCE participating State. The country’s Peoples Council has classified “treason” as, am ong other things, “fostering doubts am ong the people regarding the dom estic and foreign policy of the first and perm anent President of Turkm enistan the Great Saparm urat Turkm enbashi,” as w ell as “defam ing the state.”

The absurdity of these definitions is very clear and unheard of in a country that refers to itself as “dem ocratic”.

Any individual w ho questions the w isdom of the President thus can now look at spending the rest of his life in prison w ithout any possibility of parole or am nesty, as specified by the People’s Council. It seem s that Turkm enistan’s record on freedom of expression has becom e the w orst am ong all our participating States. By far the w orst.

206

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

Pro jects: As I have m entioned in m y last regular report, tw o largescale projects are currently being developed by m y O ffice: Freedom of the M edia and the Internet is a project that intends to provide a broader context for a public debate on the challenges to freedom of expression and freedom of the m edia posed by the new inform ation and com m unication technologies. A conference w ill be organized by m y O ffice and w ill take place in Am sterdam , the Netherlands, this sum m er.

The project Freedom and Responsibility: M edia in M ultilingual Societies looks at the constructive role m edia could and should play in com bating discrim ination, prom oting tolerance and building stable peace in m ultilingual societies. This project w ill aim to overcom e prejudices and intolerance in the m edia against citizens w ho are m em bers of m inorities. The project w ill investigate the practical w orking environm ents of the m edia in som e O SCE participating States: Sw itzerland, Luxem bourg, Serbia and Montenegro (Southern Serbia), form er Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Moldova. At the end of the project country reports w ill be produced. A concluding conference w hich w ill take place in Sw itzerland in March 2003, w ill sum m arize the results and identify the need and desire for m ore projects.

Another project on The Impact of M edia Concentration on Professional Journalism w ill collect and evaluate data in selected Western and Eastern European countries to establish the influence of the grow ing concentration of ow nership on the intellectual and econom ic independence and freedom of professional journalism . Particular attention w ill be paid to tw o issues: cross-ow nership of TV/radio and print m edia; and the influence of the Internet on the profitability of the print m edia (i.e. loss of revenue due to an increasing relevance of the Internet for classified advertisem ents, etc).

The project w ill investigate political, financial and legal pressure on free and responsible journalism , w hich m ay underm ine pluralism and hence journalistic freedom .

O n 10-11 March m y O ffice, together w ith the European Institute for the Media and the Radio and Television Company of Slovenia , held a conference on Public Service Broadcasting: N ew Challenges, N ew Solutions in Ljubljana, Slovenia. The m eeting addressed key challenges facing broadcasters in the EU Mem ber States and in the candidate countries for accession. Case studies based on national experience provided insights into current dilem m as facing the broadcasting sector: the digital proliferation and liberalization of the m edia m arkets vis-Ă -vis a sustainable, independent and responsible public service broadcaster.

REPO RTS AND STATEMENTS

207

A publication : Building M edia Freedom: The S piegel Affair â&#x20AC;&#x201C; An Example from G ermany in Russian aim s to dem on strate to th e Russian speakin g O SCE participatin g States w h at m otivates Germ an politician s to be very stron g an d outspoken in th eir support for freedom of expression . Its m essage is in th e spirit of th e recen tly deceased Rudolf Augstein , foun der of Der S piegel, an d is related to h is person al in terest in th e political developm en ts in th e form er Soviet Un ion . Th e publication w ill docum en t th e 1962 Spiegel affair. It w ill assem ble reports from Der S piegel of th at tim e an d com m en ts m ade by w itn esses 40 years later on th e occasion of th e affairâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 40th an n iversary. For exam ple, an in terview w ith Rudolf Augstein w ill be in cluded in th e publication .

The O ffice has been follow ing for a long tim e the issue of libel and specifically its m isuse in m any of our participating States. A round table w ill be organized later this year involving legal experts, politicians, journalists (and, am ong them , victim s of libel harassm ent), and NGO s to discuss this m atter and the w ays to guarantee the freedom of professional and responsible journalism .

Preparations are currently underw ay for the Fifth Central Asian M edia Conference, w hich w ill take place in Septem ber 2003 in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan.

Since m y last PC report in Decem ber, a conference w as organized in Dushanbe at the end of the year, to discuss the conditions for the m edia w ithin the current legal fram ew ork that regulates it.

Prior to that a 15-person w orking group w as established by the O SCE and Internew s to prepare a draft of a new m edia law for Tajikistan. The w orking group, consisting of parliam entary and governm ental experts, m edia law yers, journalists and NGO s, convened during a six-m onth process discussing all aspects of the legal m edia landscape, ending its w ork in spring 2002. Furtherm ore, a thorough review of all the m edia law s in force in Tajikistan w as com m issioned to com pare their com pliance w ith international standards. The review presents recom m endations for im provem ent in m any areas.

The participants at the conference agreed that the w orking conditions for Tajik m edia radically differ today from those in existence w hen the current m edia legislation w as adopted and that som e changes w ere inevitable. The participants agreed on a set of recom m endations directed at the Governm ent and Parliam ent in Tajikistan to start the process of im proving the standards by adopting a new m edia law. The O SCE is ready to further assist the Tajik authorities in this process.

208

O VERVIEW â&#x20AC;&#x201C; W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

In Kazakhstan , an Internet cafĂŠ for journalists w as opened in February as a joint project betw een the O SCE Centre and m y O ffice. This initiative w ill directly im prove access to inform ation for the local journalists. Sim ilar projects are being developed in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. We are hoping for extra-budgetary contributions for these im portant undertakings from the participating States in the nearest future so that w e can proceed as planned.

In Alm aty, a legal clinic giving independent advice and expertise on m edia issues to the courts and defence law yers has opened in February. A project proposal for a legal clinic giving free advice to journalists in Uzbekistan is also ready for consideration by donors.

The O ffice w ill initiate short exposure courses in O SCE participating States for young Azerbaijani journalists. A follow -up sem inar w ill be organized in Baku in autum n 2003. The purpose of the project is to contribute to the im provem ent and understanding of the functioning of a free m edia in Azerbaijan.

The O ffice w ill organize a w orkshop in Berlin in O ctober 2003 on the M edia Situation in the M editerranean Partners for Co-operation of the O SCE (Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, M orocco, and Tunisia) and publish the results.

REPO RTS AND STATEMENTS

209

Statement at the Permanent Co uncil o f 20 March 2003 (Under Current Issues)

In response to last w eek’s questions addressed to m e in com m ents by the US Representative, I w ould like to raise several issues here that I did not have the tim e to raise last Thursday. They are related to balancing national security concerns w ith freedom of expression in som e of our participating States.

United Kingdom : For exam ple, the Regulation of Investigatory Pow ers Act authorizes the Hom e Secretary to issue w arrants for the interception of com m unications and requires Com m unications Service Providers to provide a reasonable interception capability in their netw orks. In June 2002, the Hom e O ffice announced that the list of governm ent agencies allow ed under the act to intercept w eb traffic and m obile location inform ation w ithout a w arrant w as being extended to over 1,000 different governm ent departm ents including local authorities, health, environm ental, trade and m any other agencies. In addition, the British Broadcasting Act grants pow er to the authorities to prohibit broadcasting of certain m aterial.

The UK Freedom of Inform ation Act from 2001 does not provide for access to inform ation w here this is “required for the purpose of safeguarding national security”, and also provides for a m inisterial override. Under the O fficial Secrets Act journalists and w histle-blow ers run the risk of prosecution for reporting on w hat the Governm ent m ay consider to threaten national security.

Germ any: O n 12 March 2003 the Constitutional Court upheld the right of law enforcem ent agencies to m onitor the phones of journalists in cases of “serious” crim es. The Court ruled that telecom m unication surveillance did not violate Articles 10 and 19 of the Constitution – w hich guarantee confidentiality of inform ation – w hen a journalist is suspected of using telecom m unication equipm ent to contact a crim inal. It falls to the investigating judge to decide on a case-by-case basis w hether the requirem ents of press freedom should be allow ed to prevail over the fight against crim e.

France: The Suprem e Court confirm ed in 2001 the existence of a new crim e for journalists of being in possession of m aterial violating the 210

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

confidentiality of a prelim inary legal investigation. According to Reporters sans frontières, in Septem ber 2001 journalist and photographer Jean-Pierre Rey, a specialist in Corsican affairs, w as held for alm ost the legal m axim um of four days by the National Anti-Terrorist Service (DNAT) for lengthy interrogation under the unspoken but real threat that he could be charged.

There are tw o w ays of lim iting freedom of expression under the pretext of national security: First, by im posing restrictions on statem ents that m ay underm ine national security and, second, in lim iting the right to freedom of inform ation in relation to national security, often very broadly defined. Both form s of restrictions are present in the legislation of alm ost all O SCE participating States and m ay be open to abuse. This risk is especially high given the enthusiasm w ith w hich governm ents are pursuing the fight against terrorist crim inals and the tem ptation to overlook the need to carefully assess any proposed restrictions against the im portance of freedom of expression.

Let m e quote here the Director General of UNESCO Koichiro Matsuura, w ho recently said that “Perhaps m y gravest concern is that m uch freedom of expression and m edia freedom m ay be sacrificed hastily, even voluntarily, on the altar of security. Anxieties induced by terrorist threats m ay lead to law s and regulations w hich m ay underm ine the very rights and freedom s that the anti-terrorist cam paign is supposed to defend.”

These are just som e initial thoughts that I w anted to share w ith you. I m ay plan in the not too distant future to take a closer look at this problem w ith a view to assessing legislation related to national security and a country’s com m itm ent to freedom of expression.

Attached is a paper prepared by the freedom of expression NGO Article 19 on national security and freedom of expression that I support in principle.

REPO RTS AND STATEMENTS

211

Statement at the Permanent Co uncil o f 10 April 2003 (Under Current Issues)

I w ould like to draw your attention to som e questions of concern to m e related to the m edia coverage of the w ar in Iraq. Although this conflict is taking place outside the O SCE region, it involves som e O SCE participating States as w ell as our Mediterranean partners. We, as an organization dedicated to security and co-operation in Europe, have to observe and com m ent on a crisis that concerns our regions and their future as w ell.

First of all m y condolences go to the fam ilies and friends of those reporters w ho have been killed or died in Iraq. 8 April 2003 w ill rem ain a historic date for w ar reporting. The Baghdad office of the pan-Arab television station Al-Jazeera w as bom bed. Cam eram an Tarek Ayoub died in the attack. The Al-Jazeera m anagem ent claim s that they had inform ed the coalition forces at the start of the w ar of the exact location of its prem ises. The Palestine Hotel, w here m ost international non-em bedded journalists w ere based, w as hit by a shell fired by a US tank. The Ukrainian cam eram an Taras Protsyuk, w ho w orked for Reuters, and JosĂŠ Couso, a Spanish cam eram an for the Spanish TV station Telecinco, w ere killed. Three other journalists w ere w ounded. According to the Pentagon the attack happened in self-defence after guns w ere fired from the prem ises of the hotel at a US tank crew. An investigation has been launched, and I urge it to be speedy, thorough and transparent.

As any conflict of such m agnitude, this w ar draw s thousands of journalists to the area. The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) estim ates that around 3,000 journalists are w orking in the region. Their security is of param ount concern. We should now double our efforts to try to ensure the m ost secure environm ent possible under the circum stances for all reporters, not only those that are em bedded.

212

O VERVIEW â&#x20AC;&#x201C; W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

Statement at the Permanent Co uncil o f 5 June 2003 (Under Current Issues)

The report concerning the case of Mr. Sergei Duvanov, prepared by the tw o Dutch legal experts on the initiative of the Chairm anship, as w ell as the Kazakh com m ents to the report have been distributed to all delegations this w eek. I have raised the case of Mr. Duvanov on several occasions before you in this forum , both related to this trial in particular as w ell as to the physical and legal harassm ent that Mr. Duvanov has experienced in the past. It has alw ays been m y serious concern that Mr. Duvanov has been targeted because of his journalistic activity in Kazakhstan, especially his endeavours to report on corruption.

The report at hand outlines a num ber of investigative problem s and procedural violations related to the case of Mr. Duvanov. We urge the Kazakh authorities to take appropriate action as a result of this report, together w ith the O SCE Chairm an-in-O ffice and the relevant O SCE institutions.

REPO RTS AND STATEMENTS

213

Regular Repo rt to the Permanent Co uncil o f 31 July 2003

As before, m y report is divided in to tw o parts. In th e oral presen tation I w ill focus on som e issues of con cern to m y O ffice. Th e w ritten part provides you w ith in form ation on som e of th e coun tries w ith w h ich w e h ave been in volved over th e past four m on th s, an d on our projects.

This m onth in Berlin, together w ith tw o m edia com panies, I proposed a set of principles to guarantee the editorial independence of m edia in Central and Eastern Europe and in the form er Soviet Union.

These principles concern m edia that have been or are in the process of being acquired by w estern conglom erates. They set out the criteria that the m edia ow ners take upon them selves to adhere to once they are in a position to financially control a m edia outlet/s in one of the developing dem ocracies.

In m y view, it is im portant that the new ow ners understand their responsibility tow ards the citizens of the country w here they now ow n not only a business but also a public service indispensable to building a pluralistic and open dem ocracy. The Germ an m edia com pany Die WAZ -Gruppe and the Norw egian O rkla M edia AS have already agreed to support these principles.

At the same time, my O ffice is conducting research on the impact of m edia concentration on professional journalism . O ver the past decade European m edia have experienced som e fundam ental changes. The opening of new m arkets in the post-com m unist countries has accelerated the som etim es disturbing trend of m edia concentration all over Europe. This has been particularly evident in the print m edia sector.

While the econom ic and political im plications of concentration in the print m edia have been researched extensively, little attention has been paid to the im pact of such trends on professional journalism itself. O ur project is focusing on exactly that, zeroing in on the situation in four EU countries: Germ any, Finland, United Kingdom , and Italy, three acceding countries: Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, and one applicant country: Rom ania.

The study w ill consist of tw o parts: first, providing data on m edia concentration and foreign ow nership in these eight participating States. Second, a survey has been sent out to journalists w orking for 214

O VERVIEW â&#x20AC;&#x201C; W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

daily new spapers asking them to review the consequences of m edia concentration and econom ic pressure on professional journalism .

Results of this study w ill be published at the end of this year.

In 2002 and 2003, m y O ffice developed tw o m ajor projects. The first one looked at the Internet. This m edium offers an unprecedented m eans for the exchange of ideas, the free flow of inform ation and the distribution of all kinds of journalistic m edia. But to rely on the decentralized structure of the Internet as a safeguard for freedom of expression and free m edia is dangerous. While inform ation is distributed on the Internet regardless of national borders, at the sam e tim e new m eans of censorship, filtering, blocking and restrictive legislation are being developed and im plem ented.

That is w hy I organized a conference on Freedom of the M edia and the Internet on 13-14 June in Am sterdam . More than tw o dozen international experts w ere brought together to discuss Internet-related perils to freedom of expression. Am ong them w ere m em bers of the European Parliam ent, the Council of Europe, the European Com m ission, the O SCE, academ ia, m edia and a num ber of non-governm ental organizations from Europe and the US. The results of this conference are condensed in the Am sterdam Recom m endations. The m ain point is that w hile existing law s could be used to ban illegal content on the World Wide Web, no m easures m ust target the infrastructure of the Internet as such. The advantages of a vast netw ork of online resources and the free flow of inform ation outw eigh the dangers of m isusing the Internet by far. No m atter w hat technical m eans are used to channel the w ork of journalists to the public – be it TV, radio, new spapers or the Internet – the basic constitutional value of freedom of the m edia m ust not be questioned. This principle, w hich is older than m ost of today’s m edia, is one that all m odern European societies are com m itted to. A publication w ith contributions to the conference w ill be published in autum n this year.

The second project dealt w ith M edia in M ultilingual Societies. A publication based on our w ork in this area is being distributed. This book is the result of a study w e launched in Septem ber 2002. Let m e bring to your attention tw o figures: there are approxim ately 5,000 national groups living in our contem porary w orld and about 3,000 linguistic ones. In fact, all countries, w ithout exception, are m ultilingual. The project has addressed the role of the m edia in different languages w ithin several m ultilingual dem ocracies. Independent experts w rote country reports on the current w orking environm ent for the m edia in five countries: form er Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, REPO RTS AND STATEMENTS

215

Luxem bourg, Moldova, Serbia and Montenegro, and Sw itzerland.

The five country reports w ere presented at a conference m y O ffice organized in co-operation w ith the Institute of Mass Com m unication Studies on 28-29 March in Bern, Sw itzerland.

Sw itzerland and Luxem bourg undeniably represent historical successes in the m anagem ent of linguistic diversity. Sw itzerland and Luxem bourg do not see language variety as a threat to the security or unity of the country. The value of the Sw iss and Luxem bourg unique experien ces tran scen ds th eir n ation al boun daries. Th e form er Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Moldova, and Serbia and Montenegro are countries in the early stages of m odern dem ocratic developm ent. Media in all languages represent a pow erful social resource that can â&#x20AC;&#x201C; and m ust â&#x20AC;&#x201C; be m obilized to assist in this process. O ur publication lists best practices in the countries concerned and offers recom m endations. The publication w ill also be presented in Belgrade in the autum n.

In Novem ber I plan to hold a round table on criminal libel and insult laws, issues that have m ade life for journalists very difficult in som e of our participating States. I have said on m any occasions, and here m y Institution has gone further than, for exam ple, the Council of Europe: libel should be decrim inalized in all our participating States, even in those w here crim inal provisions have not been used for decades. All insult law s that provide undue protection for public officials should be repealed. Again, this concerns States to the east and w est of Vienna. I plan in Novem ber, together w ith experts, to develop a set of recom m endations to our participating States w hich I w ill then present to you in m y last report to the Perm anent Council as the O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media. I w ould hope that m y successor w ould then take upon him self the task of follow ing up on these recom m endations. I w ould also like to urge your governm ents to help us finance this round table and look forw ard to your support.

I w ould like to m ention m y concern about Belarus, w here w e see ongoing threats to freedom of expression. This O SCE participating State has signed all the m ain O SCE provisions on freedom of expression, the free flow of inform ation and freedom of m edia. How ever, through a stunning num ber of recent actions, the Belarusian authorities have ignored their com m itm ents and proceeded on a path to virtually stam p out any m eaningful, independent m edia in that country.

This is a self-defeating approach for this form er Soviet State that successfully began developing free and independent m edia in the early 216

O VERVIEW â&#x20AC;&#x201C; W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

1990s. A decade later Belarus is isolating itself from Europe, ignoring internationally respected standards in m any fields, including freedom of expression. This road leads now here.

I have expressed m y concerns in the past about the dangers to m edia freedom in Italy resulting from the concentration of the control over both private and public broadcasting m edia in the hands of the Prim e Minister. These concerns have been deepened by tw o bills approved on 22 July by the Italian Parliam ent: the Gasparri Bill on broadcasting reform w hich w ill allow com panies to have interests in m ore than one new s m edia category, and a bill to regulate conflicts of interest betw een ow nership of a profit-m aking enterprise and holding public office. Both bills are considered by experts as not setting serious lim its to a m onopoly. I reiterate m y concern about w hat this m eans for pluralism of opinion and freedom of the m edia in a founding Mem ber State of the European Union. After all, the EU is supposed to set an exam ple for the young dem ocracies east of Vienna.

I have been approached by journalists from the United Kingdom w ith the question w hether I w ill intervene in the case of the BBC, w ho revealed David Kelly as their m ain source for a controversial report about w eapons in Iraq. I cannot com m ent on this case until all the results of the ongoing investigation of the case are published.

Albania: At the request of our Mission, m y O ffice review ed the Law on Public and Private Radio and Television and proposed am endm ents. O ur expertâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s opinion w as forw arded to the authorities and w e understand that the com m ents have proved to be useful. This is part of our legal support w ork that has been a m ajor success.

In Arm enia, I have been closely follow ing the debate regarding libel and the open letter addressed to Arm enian Parliam entary Speaker, Arthur Baghdasaryan, on 17 June and signed by several heads of diplom atic m issions in Yerevan, including the Head of the O SCE O ffice in Yerevan, Am bassador Roy Reeve. The letter voiced concern on libel and slander in the new Crim inal Code. O n 2 July, I w rote to the Foreign Minister explaining m y position, w hich you know w ell by now, and I look forw ard to the Governm entâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s com m ents on this m atter. O n 18 July, I issued a press release expressing regret that tw o independent television com panies in Arm enia, A1+ and N oyan Tapan, had not been aw arded broadcasting licences as a result of the tender announced by the National Com m ission on Television and Radio on 18 July in Yerevan. In m y view, their absence from the airw aves underlined that freedom of expression in Arm enia continued to be restricted.

REPO RTS AND STATEMENTS

217

Azerbaijan: The 4 May attack on four journalists and on the offices and equipment of the opposition daily, Yeni M usavat, in Baku, prompted m e to ask for an explanation from the Azerbaijani Minister of Foreign Affairs. We have received an official reply from the Ministry, w hich gives details show ing that the conflict w as based on “personal grievance and insult”, and that the four attackers w ere punished. The Governm ent has assured m e that the safety of journalists is at the centre of its attention. This problem has a chance of being at least partially solved now that the country has a functioning Press Council w hose purpose is to ease tension betw een government and the media. This body includes representatives from the Governm ent and from opposition publications, as w ell as public interest advocates. The effective functioning of the Press Council w ill be especially im portant in the pre-election period this year.

M y O ffice is w orkin g closely w ith th e O SCE O ffice in Baku on a freedom of m edia project for Azerbaijan i journ alists. Th an ks to a grant from the US O SCE delegation, a group of journalists w ill travel to Wash in gton in early autum n for an exposure visit on m edia freedom th em es. It is m y h ope th at oth er participatin g States w ill fin d th e resources to in vite sim ilar groups of Azerbaijan i journ alists to their countries to give them the know ledge to help Azerbaijan develop free m edia.

Belarus: I w rote to the Foreign Minister in May concerning the suspension of one of the nation’s leading independent new spapers, Belarusskaya Delovaya Gazeta, as w ell as BDG-For Internal Use O nly and the official w arnings against several other independent new spapers. I told the Minister that these actions give the appearance that the Governm ent is using the current m edia law to restrict freedom of the press in the Republic of Belarus, and that I am deeply concerned about these negative developm ents. An answ er from the Ministry claim ed that these actions w ere done “… by order of the Minister of Inform ation on the basis of a presentation by the O ffice of the public prosecutor of the Republic of Belarus and in full com pliance w ith the law on printed and other m ass m edia.”

I am also concerned w ith the recent closure of IREX and Internew s offices in Minsk. These tw o organizations have greatly assisted in the developm ent of independent m edia in Belarus. The closure of the bureau of Russia’s NTV television netw ork in Belarus for allegedly slandering the Governm ent in its 25 June report on the funeral of the Belarusian w riter, Vasil Bykov, can also be seen as another act of repression against alternative m edia voices in the country.

218

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

The authorities, as far as I know, have prepared a draft m edia law.

The O SCE O ffice in Minsk, the Belarusian Association of Journalists and others have tried diligently to obtain a copy of this draft that should be subm itted for a public debate before being finalized. I am ready to com m it m y O ffice’s resources to conduct a thorough evaluation of this m edia law. Sm all catch: if the Belarusian authorities w ill let m e have a copy.

The situation in Central Asia is of continued concern to m y O ffice. We w ill have a chance to explore the issues in m ore detail at the Fifth Central Asian M edia Conference to be held in Bishkek on 1718 Septem ber 2003. I w ill report further on this region after w e have had an opportunity to review the situation closer.

We have recently seen renew ed efforts to control the Internet by blocking sites in Central Asia. For exam ple, since m y last report, I have approached the Governm ents in Kazakhstan and Tajikistan concerning blocked opposition w ebsites – so far no response has been given and the w ebsites rem ain w ithout access. We have sim ilar problem s in Uzbekistan.

In addition, tw o independent new spapers have been closed dow n in Central Asia since m y last report. Both are new spapers that I have m entioned several tim es in m y previous reports. M oya Stolitsa in Kyrgyzstan had to fold in May after not being able to pay exorbitant fines and “moral damages” in dozens of libel suits. In July, SolDAT in Kazakhstan w as closed after a ruling by an econom ic court regarding a lack of clarity in the founding docum ents of the new spaper.

I w ould also like to rem ind this Council that Sergei Duvanov, a journalist from Kazakhstan, is still serving his sentence in a local penitentiary notw ithstanding the interventions on his behalf by m y O ffice, O DIHR, several participating States and NGO s. The view s of the Dutch experts that have been distributed to you are very clear and unam biguous pointing out a num ber of irregularities in the legal proceedings in his case.

In Croatia, I have been dealing w ith several issues: m y O ffice has supported the w ork of the O SCE Mission in the field of m edia legislation. O n the Electronic Media Law, that m y O ffice analysed, our com m ents w ere to a large extent incorporated. I believe that now this draft law is in com pliance w ith relevant international standards.

How ever, I have been concerned w ith the toughening of som e of the legal provisions dealing w ith libel, an issue I have raised in June w ith the Foreign Minister. I understand that m y com m ents, am ong m any others, have started a w ide debate on crim inal libel in the country, REPO RTS AND STATEMENTS

219

w hich I w elcom e. This w eek I received an answ er from Foreign Minister Tonino Picula w here he defends the new ly adopted am endm ents. I w ill continue stressing m y position on libel and w ould be especially pleased if this debate in Croatia led to its decrim inalization. Also in this case m y O ffice is preparing concrete legal advice at the request of the authorities.

In Georgia m y concern is again crim inal libel, an issue I raised w ith the country’s Foreign Minister on 2 July w ith reference to am endm ents to the Crim inal Code that have been approved in the first reading by parliam ent on 6 June. My concern is w ith several paragraphs of the draft that deal w ith defam ation and insult (articles 148 and 148,1).

Com m ission of such acts could carry a prison sentence, under certain circum stances for up to five years.

In the Russian Federation, it is through television that the m ajority of citizens receive their new s. How ever, over the past few years I have had to intervene w ith the Russian Governm ent and to speak out publicly w hen the privately-ow ned television netw orks NTV and TV-6, staffed by a team of journalists w ho offered Russian view ers an alternative view point, w ere forced to close dow n. Therefore, I w as greatly concerned to learn of the dissolution by the Russian Governm ent on 21 June of NTV’s and TV-6’s successor, TVS, Russia’s last rem aining private television com pany w ith a national reach. Sim ilar m ethods of financial and legal pressure seem to have been em ployed once again to silence this independent group of television journalists. I have w ritten to Press Minister Lesin asking for clarifications, since it w as the Minister w ho finally pulled the plug on TVS. I w ould like to hear Minister Lesin’s explanation, since I understand that according to Russian law, broadcast m edia can be taken off the air only through a court order.

O nce again, I w ish to underscore the critical im portance to the future of an open and public debate in Russia of an independent television netw ork, one free of any control by the State or state-ow ned com panies.

I have also recently intervened w ith the Russian Governm ent about the case of tw o journalists from the Ural city of Perm . Konstantin Sterledev and Konstantin Bakharev of the Perm regional daily Z vezda w ere put on trial after publishing tw o articles last autum n about alleged m ethods used by the regional office of the FSB. In m y letter to Foreign Minister Ivanov, I expressed m y hope that the Russian authorities w ould adhere to international standards concerning this case. I w as glad to learn that the Perm city court found the tw o journalists not guilty.

220

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

I have heard about the 18 July m urder in Moscow of Alikhan Guliyev, a form er Ingush journalist. Since there are conflicting reports about this case, I am hoping to receive additional, m ore concrete inform ation about it. I also urge the safe release of AFP journalist Ali Astam irov, kidnapped 4 July in Ingushetia.

I continue to be gravely concerned about the m edia blockade around the Republic of Chechnya. This obstruction of the flow of inform ation inhibits Russian, Chechen and international m edia consum ers from know ing the true depth of the brutality taking place there. The isolation of the Republic prevents any rehabilitation of journalism and updating of m edia technology w hich is badly needed.

My O ffice is participating in a Chairm anship-in-O ffice initiative, a Task Force developing a program m e of technical co-operation in Chechnya, including in the m edia field. We have developed tw o project proposals, but unfortunately, m y senior adviser w as denied entry into the Russian Federation as part of a Task Force project team on 15 June, and to date w e have received no explanation.

I w ould like to draw your attention to the controversy in Serbia (Serbia and Montenegro) regarding the appointm ent of m em bers of the Broadcasting Council. I dealt w ith this subject in a w ritten statem ent issued on 17 July to this Council. To reiterate m y position: there is concern am ong politicians, the m edia and non-governm ental organizations about the legitim acy of the appointm ent of several Council m em bers. Certain procedural irregularities have been raised publicly. These irregularities affect the standing of the Council in the eyes of the countryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s citizens. The Serbian Parliam ent on 15 July 2003 reconfirm ed those m em bers of the Council w hose legitim ate appointm ent to the Council had been questioned by m any experts including m y O ffice. This decision has been criticized both inside and outside the country. In this context, I believe that the best solution w ould have been to restart the procedure from the beginning, both in the cases of the three disputed m em bers and the tw o m em bers that resigned. This w ould have, in m y view, closed the issue and provided the Council w ith the legitim acy it needs to function properly.

I still hope that this is the path that the authorities w ould follow in the future and I offer m y good offices for any arbitration and/or expertise that m ight be needed.

REPO RTS AND STATEMENTS

221

Statement at the Permanent Co uncil o f 25 September 2003 (Under Current Issues)

The Fifth O SCE Central Asian M edia Conference w as held in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, on 17-18 Septem ber. The conference titled M edia in M ulticultural and M ultilingual Societies w as attended by journalists, governm ent officials, and Mem bers of Parliam ent and civil society from the four Central Asian States: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Participants from Turkm enistan w ere not able to attend because they w ere denied exit visas by the state authorities.

In general, m edia freedom in all the Central Asian States has deteriorated since our last conference. This includes the host country Kyrgyzstan. In the w hole region libel cases, outright pressure, both physical and psychological, im prisonm ent on dubious and trum ped up charges and denying access to inform ation, are becom ing a w ay of life for journalists. Politicians and governm ent officials are less and less tolerant of criticism . A system rem iniscent of cults of personality from the tw entieth century is taking hold in som e of the O SCE participating States, an organization that prides itself on representing dem ocratic governm ents.

Those speaking at the conference w ere som etim es reluctant to be overly critical of their countries fearing reprisals at hom e. Journalists w orking for the non-governm ent m edia are literally on the front line of defending freedom of expression in this O SCE region. It is in certain w ays a battle betw een the retrogrades from the Soviet past and the few reporters and editors w ho are trying to develop a civil society based on fundam ental freedom s. Unfortunately, the retrogrades are on the offensive and taking new ground.

There are m any cases of harassm ent of journalists in Central Asia, too m any to list here. That is w hy I w ill focus only on the tw o m ost egregious ones: Ruslan Sharipov, an independent journalist from Uzbekistan, w as sentenced to five years in prison this August for having allegedly com m itted several sexual-related crim es. After m onths of m aintaining his innocence, Sharipov suddenly changed his plea to guilty, w aived his right to legal counsel and apologized to the authorities for criticizing them in his articles. Last w eek, a letter w ritten by Sharipov to the UN Secretary-General w as being distributed w orldw ide by the NGO com m unity. In it Sharipov explains that he only confessed after police brutally tortured and threatened to kill 222

O VERVIEW â&#x20AC;&#x201C; W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

him as w ell as to infect him w ith the AIDS virus. I and m y successor w ill have to look m ore closely into cases of torture of journalists.

In Kazakhstan, Sergei Duvanov continues to serve his sentence on charges that have been questioned by several legal experts and after a court hearing that has been broadly criticized for m any irregularities. I understand that in Novem ber President Nazarbayev plans to address this forum . If by then the case of Duvanov is not resolved I w ill have no other choice but to raise his fate here in the Perm anent Council directly w ith the President.

The participants at the Bishkek Conference adopted a declaration that is attached to m y statem ent. It outlines points of concern to m y O ffice and to the journalists in the region. I w ould just like to once again underline: m edia freedom is an essential com ponent of a dem ocratic civil society. If the Central Asian governm ents are in reality interested in sticking to the values they have signed up to w hen they accepted m y m andate they m ust take a long and hard look at their current record and m ake som e serious changes in their attitudes tow ards the m edia.

REPO RTS AND STATEMENTS

223

Repo rt o n the Media Situatio n in Chechnya Tenth Country Report

Preface. As the O SCE Representative on Freedom of the M edia, I would like to introduce the tenth country report, this one on the media situation in Chechnya. M y O ffice has previously published country reports on The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Croatia, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine, Georgia, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The usual practice of this institution is to have independent outside experts write the reports. It therefore cannot take full responsibility for the report’s content. In this particular case we were asked not to mention the names of the experts.

I would also like to thank the Center for Journalism in Extreme Situations of the Russian Union of Journalists that helped to prepare this report.

Freim ut Duve, Novem ber 2003

1 . The Che che n Re public 1.1. A Histo ry o f Co nflict. The first arm ed conflicts betw een the Chechens and Russian Im perial Forces broke out in 1785 over Georgia.

In 1801, Tsar Alexander I signed the Manifesto on the Annexation of Georgia to Russia. In 1817, the Great Caucasian War started, lasting until 1859. In 1860-61 and 1877-87, the Chechens staged anti-Russia uprisings, w hich w ere harshly stifled. In 1887, the im perial adm inistration com m enced the process of forceful Russification of the territory of the contem porary Chechen Republic, populating it w ith Cossacks.

In 1917, the Union of Allied Mountaineers of the Northern Caucasus w as created, w ith the goal of establishing a Caucasus Region inside Russia. The sam e year w as m arked by bloody battles betw een the Chechens and Cossacks. In March 1918, the Tersk People’s Republic w as created, incorporating the Chechens. In May 1918, the Independent Republic of the Mountaineers of the Northern Caucasus w as proclaim ed, and officially recognized by Turkey, Georgia, and Azerbaijan.

In 1921, the Mountaineer Autonom ous Soviet Socialist Republic w as created, w ith the Chechen Autonom ous Province separating from it in Novem ber 1922. In 1929, another Chechen uprising took place, provoked by collectivization and the creation of collective farm s.

224

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

O n 15 January 1934, the Checheno-Ingush Autonom ous Province cam e into being, transform ed into the Checheno-Ingush Autonom ous Soviet Socialist Republic (CIASSR) on 5 Decem ber 1936.

Another Chechen uprising took place in the w inter of 1940 and w as severely crushed in early 1941. In February 1942, a further uprising w as stifled by Red Arm y aircraft. O n 23 February 1944, the Soviet Governm ent decided to forcefully deport the Chechen Republic’s population to Northern Kazakhstan, Central Asia, and Siberia. The Republic’s territory w as subsequently divided am ong the four neighbouring regions.

From 1944 until the m id-1950s (according to som e sources, until the early 1960s), underground partisan m ovem ents existed on the territory of the form er Chechen Republic. In 1957, the Chechens w ere rehabilitated, and the CIASSR reinstated.

O n 23 November 1990, the First Congress of the Chechen People in Grozny adopted the Declaration of Sovereignty of the Chechen Republic Nokhchi-Cho. Major General Dzhokhar Dudaev w as elected Chairm an of the Executive Com m ittee of the Chechen National Congress.

O n 27 Novem ber 1990, the Suprem e Council of the CIASSR voted in favour of the Declaration of State Sovereignty of the ChechenoIngush Republic. O n 1 O ctober 1991, Dudaev w as elected President of the Chechen Republic.

In November 1992, the separate Ingush Republic w as officially recognized. In January 1994, President Dudaev’s decree officially proclaimed the other part of the CIASSR as the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria.

O n 26-27 Novem ber 1994, the Russian m ilitary forces launched the first assault on Grozny, and w ere subsequently defeated. O n 11 December 1994, the First Chechen Cam paign started, officially called in President Boris Yeltsin’s Decree, “Measures for Restoration of Law and O rder on the Territory of the Chechen Republic”. The Cam paign ended on 31 August 1996, w ith Alexander Lebed and Aslan Maskhadov signing a peace agreem ent in Khasavyurt (Dagestan).

O n 27 January 1997, Aslan Maskhadov w as elected President of the Chechen Republic. Eighteen candidates participated in the elections. O n 12 May 1997, Maskhadov and Boris Yeltsin signed the Agreem ent on Peace and Principles of Mutual Relations.

O n 23 Septem ber 1999, a session of Russia’s Security Council took place in Moscow, resulting in the signing of a secret Presidential Decree regarding a counter-terrorist operation in the Chechen Republic. O n 1 O ctober 1999, the Second Chechen Cam paign started, this tim e under the nam e of an “anti-terrorist operation”.

M ED IA SITUATIO N

IN

C HECHNYA

225

1.2. The Chechen Republic’s Mass Media. Prior to the disintegration of the USSR, the m edia of the Checheno-Ingush Autonom ous Soviet Socialist Republic w as no different from any other region of the Soviet Union. All m edia w as controlled by the Com m unist Party, w ith the first independent publications appearing only in the late 1980s, w ith the advent of Gorbachev’s perestroika.

The independent press started appearing in 1989-91. How ever, the m ajority of new spapers com m enced publication in 1991, as the Republic w as preparing the Declaration of State Sovereignty.

Prior to May 1992, the follow ing periodicals w ere published on the territory of the Chechen Republic: • The Respublika new spaper, founded in 1923, prior to 1990 published under the title of Komsomolskoe plemya. Closed in 1994; • The Impuls new spaper, independent; • The Spravedlivost new spaper, founded in 1989, prior to February of that year published as an inform ation bulletin entitled N iyskho; • The Golos Checheno-Ingushetii, founded in 1917 under the title of Tovarisch, prior to 1990 published under the title of Groznensky rabochiy. In 1995, reassum ed the latter title; • The Bardt new spaper, founded in 1989; • The Kavkazskij dom new spaper, founded 16 February 1992; • The Ekho gor new spaper, founded in February 1991; • The Vozrozhdenie new spaper, founded in Decem ber 1991; • The Ekho Chechni new spaper, founded in 1991; • The Kavkaz new spaper, founded in 1991; • The Svoboda new spaper, founded in 1991 under the title of N ovaya Gazeta.

From 1993 to 1995, the list of m edia outlets expanded to include the follow ing: • The Ichkeria new spaper, previously published under the title of Golos Chechenskoi respubliki; • The Daimokhk new spaper; • The Vast new spaper; • The Gums new spaper, Guderm es District; • The O rga new spaper, city of Argun; • The M arsho new spaper, Urus-Martan District; • The Terkiyst new spaper, Nadterechny District; • The Informatsionniy vestnik, supplem ent to the Daimokhk; • The N edelya new spaper; 226

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

• • • • •

The The The The The

Chechnya v Chechnye new spaper; O rga m agazine, city of Argun; Ichkeria m agazine; Stelaad m agazine; M alkh-A’zni m agazine.

In addition to new spapers and m agazines, the follow ing six television stations w ere in operation in the Chechen Republic: Presidentskij kanal, Seda, Ass, 5 kanal, TV M Z hK, and Vainakh; as w ell as the radio stations Vostok and Bioradio.

2 . Jo urnalists’ Activity during the First Arm ed Co nflict (1 9 9 4 -9 6 ) 2.1. Chechen Media. During the period of political instability in the Chechen Republic, up to the beginning of the first w ar, m any new spapers had to fear their future existence. They w ere attacked by supporters of President Dudaev, as w ell as by his political adversaries w ithin the Republic, and the pro-Moscow politicians. An exam ple of this struggle over the influence on the m edia w as the M arsho new spaper of the Urus-Martan District. The new spaper w as discontinued in 1992. Follow ing its reinstatem ent in 1993, it w as closed again after several m onths, this tim e on the orders of Vice President Zelim khan Yandarbiev. Subsequently, M arsho w as published secretly. O n 17 Septem ber 1994, its editor-in-chief, Said Khodzhaliev, w as arrested.

After the em ergence of the pro-Moscow Provisional Council, in opposition to Dudaev, M arsho com m enced publication again; how ever, on 2 Novem ber 1994, it received a w arning from the new, proMoscow authorities, regarding the “inadm issibility of publications discrediting the national Liberation m ovem ent and the leaders of the opposition.” In February 1995, the Provisional Council transferred all of M arsho’s assets to another new spaper founded by the District adm inistration.

In 1995, the Presidentskiy kanal, the official television station of Dzhokhar Dudaev’s governm ent, w as w orking underground. In April 1995, the station w as operating in the village of Vedeno, w hich w as bom bed by the Russian Air Force. The m aterials for broadcasting w ere being collected spontaneously: the station em ployed its ow n correspondents, w ho doubled as cam eram en and editors. There w ere also volunteers film ing various events w ith their hom e cam corders.

People em ployed by the Presidentskiy kanal w ere courageous journalists, w ho visited settlem ents destroyed by bom bings, interview ed field com m anders, film ed dem onstrations and other acts of protest.

M ED IA SITUATIO N

IN

C HECHNYA

227

For several m onths during the w ar, the 5 kanal station w as w orking in the district centre of Shali. O n 20 August 1995, a radio station w ent on air, and the Ichkeria new spaper com m enced its publication.

After the Russian Arm y gained control of Grozny and the m ajority of the Chechen Republic’s Districts, the new, pro-Moscow adm inistration began to form its ow n inform ation policy. In August 1995, ten state new spapers started publishing in Grozny, w ith three m ore in the Districts. At the sam e tim e, independent new spapers, such as Groznensky rabochij, Impuls, Vestnik, and N edelya, w ere published as w ell. The new adm inistration also m ade attem pts to restore radio and television broadcasting; how ever, it only m anaged to install a rebroadcasting device w hich allow ed it to receive and distribute the signals of the First and Second Russian State TV Stations. Most television stations w ere operating on the decim etre frequency, w ith no control exercised over the latter. As a result, the sam e channel could be broadcasting a speech by Dzhokhar Dudaev, and som e tim e later a statem ent by Doku Zavgaev, a pro-Moscow leader.

In the course of the First Chechen Cam paign, eight ethnic Chechen journalists perished, as w ell as three ethnic Russian journalists born in Chechnya (see Appendix). Arthur Um anksy, an independent journalist from the city of Argun is still listed as m issing in action. Several Chechen journalists have undergone arrest and tortures in the socalled filtration cam ps, including Abdullah Bagaev, Isa Ibragim ov, Shirvani Magom aev, Ibragim Ugurchiev, and Magom m edrashid Pliev.

There have been m ultiple instances of detention of journalists, unlaw ful confiscation of cam corders, cam eras, film and tapes, as w ell as assault on and w ounding of Chechen journalists.

2.2. Russian and Fo reign Jo urnalists. Alm ost im m ediately after the beginning of the First Chechen Cam paign, the Russian Governm ent attem pted to create an inform ation centre responsible for prom ulgating the official state view of the events in Chechnya.

The first such attem pt to create an inform ation stream serving the Governm ent w as m ade on 1 Decem ber 1994. The Governm ent’s resolution read: “In the light of the com plications in the situation in the Northern Caucasus, w hich threatens the further societal and political stabilization, and in an effort to bring to the Russian and international public objective inform ation regarding the events that take place,” it w as necessary to create a Provisional Inform ation Centre (PIC). Prim e Minister Viktor Chernom yrdin signed the Russian Governm ent’s Decree 1886-R, appointing the Chairm an of the State 228

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

Press Com m ittee, Sergei Gryzunov, to the position of Director of the new ly created centre. Several official departm ents, such as the Ministry of Em ergencies, Ministry of Nationality Affairs, Ministry of Internal Affairs, Federal Counterintelligence Service, Ministry of Defence, and the Federal Border Patrol Service, w ere instructed to provide the PIC w ith current inform ation. The centre itself w as delegated w ith accrediting Russian and foreign m edia outlets.

The PIC w as to “offer necessary assistance to the representatives of Russian and foreign m edia outlets w orking in the Northern Caucasus region, w ith a view to providing objective inform ation and personal security of the representatives.”

Th e follow in g day, 2 D ecem ber 1994, th e PIC distributed th e Accreditation Statute, w h ich stipulated th at a journ alist, in addition to providin g th e usual data an d a ph otograph , h ad to also provide proof of in suran ce. Th is w as th e first state requirem en t for journ alists w h o set out to w ork in extrem e situation s; h ow ever, it w as w idely disregarded. O ver th e course of th e First Ch ech en War, especially during the first m onths thereof, m ost Russian journalists headin g for Ch ech n ya w ere n ot in sured. O n ly h alfw ay th rough th e w ar did som e M oscow n ew spapers an d television station s start to adh ere to th is requirem en t.

O n 9 Decem ber 1994, Prim e Minister Chernom yrdin signed the decree “O n Ensuring the State Security and Territorial Integrity of the Russian Federation, Legality, Rights and Liberties of its Citizens, Disarm am ent of Illegal Arm ed Units on the Territory of the Chechen Republic and the Adjacent Regions of the Northern Caucasus.” Item 6 of the Decree read: “To im m ediately annul the accreditation of journalists w orking in the arm ed conflict zone for transm itting inauthentic inform ation, and/or propaganda of national or religious intolerance.” In this regard, the Decree violated Article 48 of the Russian Federation Law “O n Mass Media”, w hich stipulated that a journalist’s accreditation m ay be annulled only under court order.

The PIC rather quickly becam e an outcast, as new spaper and television reporters avoided using both its bulletins and organizational/accreditation services. By the end of the First War, m any journalists did not rem em ber that the Russian Governm ent had created the PIC for them , since on the territory of the Chechen Republic, m ultiple governm ental agencies, including m ilitary organizations, required accreditation docum ents of their ow n. Many journalists, even after the end of the w ar, displayed stacks of m ultiple accreditation cards issued by various press services.

M ED IA SITUATIO N

IN

C HECHNYA

229

Nine Russian or foreign journalists perished during the First Chechen Cam paign: tw o of them w ere foreign, w hile the other seven represented the Russian press. Eight other journalists, including an independent Am erican reporter (see Appendix) are still listed as m issing.

2.3. Vio latio ns o f Jo urnalists’ Rights. O ver the course of the First Cam paign (1994-1996): • A total of 20 journalists died (11 w ere residents of the Chechen Republic); • A total of 9 journalists w ere listed as m issing; • 36 journalists w ere w ounded; • 26 journalists w ere victim s of assault; • 174 journalists w ere detained; • 117 journalists w ere fired at (including deliberate fire); • 34 journalists w ere threatened; • The Russian Arm y illegally confiscated video, audio, and photographic gear and tapes from 37 journalists.

Journalistic activity during the First War w as hardly controlled by either the Russian or Chechen (Dudaev’s) authorities. O n the contrary, the Chechen side w as m ore open, co-operating w ith the journalists in their w ork. This resulted in representatives of the Russian side claim ing that “som e Russian journalists w ere bought by the Chechens.” The Russian special service agencies displayed a certain letter signed by Chechen officials close to Dudaev, w hich supposedly conspired to allocate m oney specifically for bribing Russian journalists. Dum a Deputy Stanislav Govorukhin publicly quoted from the letter, and w as subsequently sued by Kronid Lyubarsky, reporter for the Moscow w eekly N ovoe vremya. After Lubarsky’s death, his w idow w on the case, dem anding from Govorukhin libel com pensation in the am ount of one rouble. How ever, the letter in question is still being used by the special service agencies as “proof” of the bribing of Russian journalists.

The vast m ajority (over 90 per cent) of those initiating violations of journalists’ rights w ere the Russian m ilitary. Several journalists perished w hile w orking in the com bat regions, either during air or artillery strikes. How ever, others, such as Ruslan Tsebiev, Farkhad Kerim ov, Viktor Pim enov, Nadezhda Chaikova, Nina Efim ova, and Ram zan Khadzhiev, w ere found w ith bullet w ounds, w hich m ay testify to their forced deaths. The circum stances of at least tw o journalist deaths have been m ade public: Natalia Alyakina and Sham khan 230

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

Kerim ov are know n to have been killed by Russian soldiers. How ever, during a 1995 trial, the Russian soldier w ho had killed Natalia Alyakina w as acquitted of the charges against him .

Thus, not a single person perpetrating a crim e against journalists has been convicted, even w hen the nam es of soldiers and officers confiscating the photographic gear and/or m aterials, detaining, and assaulting journalists, w ere know n. The Russian authorities effectively offered the journalists an unw ritten com prom ise: “We (the authorities) shall not place restrictions on you, w e shall neither introduce censorship nor prohibit you from visiting Chechnya. You (the journalists) w ill extricate yourselves as you w ill, finding a com m on language w ith the m ilitary, and w ill not com plain to us.”

3 . Pe rio d be tw e e n Co nflicts (Se pte m be r 1 9 9 6 – O cto be r 1 9 9 9 ) Peace w as form ally established on the territory of the Chechen Republic after the signing of the peace accord betw een the Secretary of the Russian Security Council, Alexander Lebed, and Aslan Maskhadov on 31 August 1996. This w as sealed by the personal m eeting betw een Maskhadov and Russian President Boris Yeltsin on 12 May 1997.

The Chechen leadership proceeded to form its ow n policies, including that of inform ation. Several conflicts occurred during this period; they m ay be view ed as Maskhadov’s attem pt to regulate the activities of the electronic m edia, prim arily television.

During the sam e period, Russian and foreign journalists continued to w ork on the territory of the Chechen Republic. How ever, alm ost im m ediately after the signing of the peace accord, kidnappings of journalists started to occur in the Republic.

From 27 Septem ber 1996 to 1 O ctober 1999, 21 journalists w ere kidnapped under various circum stances. Tw o w ere natives of Chechnya (Natalia Vasenina and Said Isaev); one w as a foreigner (independent Italian journalist, Mauro Galligani); three w ere representatives of Russian regional m edia; and the rest w orked for Moscow new s agencies, television and radio stations, and new spapers. O ne of those kidnapped, Viktor Petrov, w as in Chechnya on a professional m ission, helping the relatives of a m issing Russian soldier to locate him .

During this period, there w ere no recorded instances of journalists perishing. How ever, on 19 July 1999, Vladim ir Yatsina, a photographer for the Russian ITAR-TASS new s agency, w as kidnapped; though the kidnapping took place in Ingushetia, Chechnya w as view ed as his possible w hereabouts. His death w as reported several M ED IA SITUATIO N

IN

C HECHNYA

231

tim es by the Russian special service agencies, w hich cited testim onies of eyew itnesses, w ho in turn claim ed to have been im prisoned w ith the journalist and to have seen him m urdered. How ever, Yatsina’s body w as never found.

3.1. Chechen Media. After m utual relations w ere established betw een President Maskhadov’s Governm ent and the Boris Yeltsin adm inistration, reconstruction of m edia activity began in Chechnya.

O n 1 February 1997, a Russian presidential aide, Sergei Slipchenko, announced the developm ent of a special program m e for assisting the Chechen m edia, taking the form of a joint effort for the reconstruction of television, print m edia, and the inform ation agency in the Republic.

Meanw hile, Chechnya itself began the process of m edia reorganization. O n 10 March 1997, Maskhadov signed edicts suspending the activities of private television stations, as “unsanctioned broadcasting” w as deem ed “conducive of corruption of young people’s m orals”, and introduced com pulsory licensing of television and radio com panies.

According to the Director of the Republican Chechenpress agency, Abdulkham id Khatuev, “the concentration of television broadcasting in the hands of one Chechen state structure serves the purpose of purging from the airw aves the low -quality video products distributed by dozens of pirate television com panies that operate in the Republic.”

Th e situation w ith Ch ech en television w as especially dram atic.

Just as in m an y parts of th e form er USSR, television becam e th e m ain source of official in form ation distribution , as w ell as a propagan da tool. In th e Ch ech en Republic, judgin g by th e even ts of 199698, th e struggle for th e television airw aves m irrored th at of th e Russian auth orities in regard to th e N TV an d TV S in depen den t television station s.

O n 10 April 1997, Aslan Maskhadov rem oved from office the Director of State Television, Sharpudin Ism ailov, and the Head of the Departm ent of Television and Radio Broadcasting, Lem a Chabaev.

O n 13 O ctober 1997, the Russian Interfax new s agency cited an “inform ed source in the Chechen President’s adm inistration” in reporting the kidnapping of the Chief Editor of Chechen Television, Lem a Gudaev, and the Press Secretary of the President of the Chechen Republic, Kazbek Khadzhiev. Tw o hours later, the sam e agency reported that both individuals w ere in their respective hom es. Chechen Minister of Internal Affairs, Kazbek Makhashev, called the kidnappings report “an attem pt to destabilize the situation in the Republic.”

232

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

O n 22 O ctober 1997, the Chairm an of the State Com m ittee for Television of the Chechen Republic, Lem a Chabaev, subm itted his resignation. How ever, the Chechen President, after m eeting w ith the television staff, declined to accept it. The situation w as further exacerbated by the 15 March 1999 bom bing, w ith grenade explosions and sm all arm s, of the offices of the state new spaper Ichkeria. The building sustained m assive dam age, but there w ere no casualties.

Meanw hile, Chechnya saw the beginnings of confrontation am ong the various political groups w ithin the Governm ent. The leader of the “Islam ic O rder” union of patriotic forces, Movladi Udugov, lodged a com plaint in a Shariat Court about tw o republican com m ercial television stations. The com plaint w as based on the notion that the stations broadcasted program m es that contradicted the norm s of Islam ic m orality.

O n 26 O ctober 1998, a letter w as found in the offices of the Chechen Television and Radio Broadcasting Centre near Grozny. In the letter, unknow n terrorists threatened to detonate the centre if the broadcasting netw orks of several transm itting stations w ere not expanded. The centre w as broadcasting the program m ing of the Russian O RT, VGTRK, and five local stations.

In late 1998, a conflict flared up involving the independent Kavkaz television station, ow ned by Movladi Udugov. The station w as closed on 12 Novem ber 1998 by the State Prosecutor’s office, due to “m ultiple instances of breaking the existing legal norm s in the television program m es, prom ulgation of anti-state ideas and provocative statem ents by political parties, m ovem ents, and private individuals exacerbating the public and political situation in Chechnya.” The station’s m anagem ent appealed to the Suprem e Shariat Court, citing a violation of the right to freedom of speech, guaranteed by the Chechen Constitution, as w ell as a violation of the m edia law. Follow ing the court appeal, the Prosecutor’s edict w as deferred, pending the outcom e of the case. O n 2 March 1999, the opposition shura (a structure laying claim s to suprem e pow er in the Republic) announced the increase in Kavkaz’s status to that of a national television station.

Kavkaz w idely publicized the activities of the shura, providing airtim e to politicians and m em bers of the m ilitary w ho criticized the Chechen President.

Nonetheless, on 18 March 1999, the Kavkaz television station w as closed. The decision cam e from the Ministry of Justice, Suprem e Shariat Court, and Departm ent of Com m unications of Ichkeria, follow ing a letter from Chechnya’s Prosecutor General, Salm an Albakov, M ED IA SITUATIO N

IN

C HECHNYA

233

to the heads of law enforcem ent agencies. In the letter, Albakov dem anded a cessation of the activities of the Kavkaz station, w hich “for a long period of tim e has engaged in crim inal activity, broadcasting program m es of oppositionist character.”

O n 29 July 1997, agents of the National Security Service of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria arrested Raisa Taibulaeva, a journalist and press secretary of the Mayor of Grozny. She w as accused of collaborating w ith “the occupational authorities of the pro-Moscow Governm ent.” The Mayor of Grozny, Lecha Dudaev, view ed Taibulaeva’s arrest as the beginning of a political struggle against his ow n candidacy at the upcom ing m ayoral elections.

3.2. Kidnappings o f Jo urnalists. During the First War, the num ber of m issing journalists reached nine. The kidnappings occurred betw een 27 February 1995 and 28 August 1996. Am ong those kidnapped and m issing are one US citizen, and three citizens of Ukraine, w hile the rest are citizens of Russia. O f those, only Arthur Um ansky from the city of Argun had perm anent residency in Chechnya.

The circum stances of all those w ho disappeared have still not been investigated, w hile attem pts at journalistic investigations (five separate m issions) of the disappearance of three journalists from St. Petersburg yielded no results. O ver the years, none of the Russian officials have m ade any encouraging statem ents regarding the steps taken for establishing the circum stances of the journalists’ disappearance.

If one considers the 27 Septem ber 1996 kidnapping of Natalia Vasenina (a resident of Chechnya and chief editor of the Respublika new spaper), to be a conspiracy on the part of local crim inal structures, then the 19 January 1997 kidnapping of tw o Russian journalists, O RT reporter Rom an Perevezentsev and cam eram an Vyacheslav Tibelius, becam e the first in a new series of kidnappings.

In light of the kidnapping of Perevezentsev and Tibelius, w ho w ere freed a m onth later, on 18 February 1997, several politicians m ade statem ents regarding the m otives. O n 11 March 1997, the President of Ingushetia, Ruslan Aushev, stated that “the kidnappers of the Russian journalists m ay have been pursuing political goals, rather than financial.” The Press Secretary of the President of Chechnya, Kazbek Khadzhiev, said on 22 March 1997 that “Russian journalists w ho receive accreditation in Chechnya refuse the security detail for one reason or another. O ne m ay deduce that they arrive in Chechnya not for collecting inform ation, but for conducting special tasks of the secret services, and subsequently disappear, according to the plan.” From that 234

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

point on, according to Khadzhiev, all journalists w ere to m ove around the territory of Chechnya accom panied by a security detail or else take responsibility for their ow n safety. The Chechen leadership had already been m ulling over a plan for settling all journalists in Grozny, in close proxim ity to each other. How ever, this issue, as w ell as that of security for journalists, has still not been finalized.

The subject of kidnappings of journalists surfaced periodically in the public statem ents of other Russian and Chechen politicians.

Thus, on 29 Novem ber 1999, the Germ an Tageszeitung new spaper quoted Ilias Akhm edov, a supporter of Aslan Maskhadov and at that tim e the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, as saying, “the purpose of kidnapping people in Chechnya has alw ays been the destabilization of the situation in the Republic and its isolation from international assistance. In 1996, the w ar in Chechnya w as over only form ally, as the cold w ar continues.

The m ajority of the kidnappings w ere orchestrated by the Russian special service agencies. How ever, Chechen crim inals, like Basaev, certainly participated as w ell. Im agine this: to conduct a successful kidnapping, one needs at least eight people and tw o vehicles; the people at checkpoints m ust be properly inform ed. This is possible only w ith the support of entire organizations.”

O n 11 Septem ber 1997, the head of a Special Chechen Presidential Investigative and Executive Brigade, Magom ed Magom adov, stated that “som e high-ranking Russian politicians are uninterested in investigating the crim inal cases w hich exam ine the kidnappings of journalists and the m ediating services offered in providing the ransom at the tim e of their release.” Magom adov also em phasized that the Chechen investigators w ho visited Moscow did not have the opportunity to question the victim s or the w itnesses, w hich “indicates a lack of desire to establish the truth in the issues of kidnapping and release of journalists.”

From 27 Septem ber 1996 to 4 O ctober 1999 (that is, until the beginning of the Second War), 23 journalists (see Appendix) w ere kidnapped on the territory of Chechnya and the adjacent republics (prim arily Ingushetia). Tw o w ere foreign citizens (Mauro Galligani of Italy and Brice Fletiaux of France); four represented Russian regional m edia; the other 17 w ere journalists from Moscow new spapers, television and radio stations. There w as one ethnic Chechen am ong those kidnapped: Said Asaev, correspondent for the ITAR-TASS new s agency.

It is assum ed that som e journalists w ere released in exchange for m oney; how ever, no one has been able to provide any docum ents proving or disproving this.

M ED IA SITUATIO N

IN

C HECHNYA

235

4 . Info rm atio n Blo ckade 4.1. Info rmatio n Blo ckade betw een the Wars (1996-1999). In the period betw een the tw o m ilitary cam paigns in Chechnya, the Russian media attempted to run the information blockade imposed by the Russian authorities. Incidentally, the initiative behind the blockade arose not so m uch from the authorities but from the journalists them selves.

O n 30 June 1995, at the tim e w hen the First War w as still going on, the first person to suggest an inform ation blockade of Chechnya w as Alexander Nevzorov, a State Dum a Deputy and a journalist. After the signing of the peace accord, the state structures practically “froze” any inform ation that w ould disclose any data on the results of the First War. O n 2 Septem ber 1996, the O gonyok m agazine published an article entitled, “We’ve Severed O ur Ties w ith the War. But We Didn’t Manage to Run the Inform ation Blockade.” The m agazine attem pted to calculate the first “statistical totals” of the w ar: “how m any m ilitary personnel w ere engaged in ‘establishing the Constitutional order’; how m any w ere killed, w ounded, w ent m issing, got captured; how m any crim inal cases w ere open during the conflict; how m any refugees the w ar engendered; how m any m others had to look for their sons.” The m agazine addressed the enquiries to the appropriate m inistries; how ever, none of the officials answ ered.

O n 2 February 1997, the leader of the Party of National Independence of Chechnya, Ruslan Kutaev, stated that the Federal side had already created and im plem ented a “centre of inform ation w arfare against the Chechen Republic”. He also stated that the inform ation distributed by the Russian m edia “is often contrary to reality, w ith the objective of detonating the situation in the Republic from the inside.”

Presidential Aide Sergei Slipchenko responded by calling Kutaev’s statem ents “an utter delirium ,” em phasizing that “such statem ents are provocative, and are not at all conducive to the process of peaceful settlem ent of the crisis in Chechnya.” Nonetheless, on 11 May 1997, the Director General of the Chechen Press inform ation agency, AbdulKham id Khatuev, appealed to Russian journalists not to allow the inform ation blockade to be im posed on Chechnya. He stated that “the journalists w ho had done m uch to end the Chechen War, now m ust not lose heart in fighting the forces that are trying to destroy the feeble shoots of peace in Chechnya.”

O n 6 March 1997, the Secretary of the Russian Union of Journalists, Pavel Gutiontov, appealed to the International Federation of Journalists to support the international inform ation blockade of Chechnya. “O ne should not play up, even unw ittingly, to those in 236

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

w hose interests it is to thoughtfully discuss som e political m otives for the elem entarily foul gangster kidnappings,” he said. This w as Gutiontov’s reaction to an appeal by the Com m ittee for the Protection of Journalists, w hich called for “not rushing to declare the Republic an inform ation outlaw ”. Gutiontov once again urged the Russian m edia to not send reporters to Chechnya. O n 27 March 1997, the Secretary of Russia’s Security Council, Ivan Rybkin, m ade a statem ent against the inform ation blockade of Chechnya, saying that “a blockade never does any good, especially if it is conducted on Russia’s territory.” O n 14 May 1997, the press service of the Security Council issued a statem ent, w hich claim ed that “those opposed to the norm alization of the situation in the Chechen Republic and realization of the principle agreem ents signed in Moscow on 12 May, are starting to actively use the m edia for the prom ulgation of m endacious reports, w hich destabilize the situation in the Northern Caucasus.”

O n 7 March 1997, the pro-Krem lin political m ovem ent “O ur Hom e is Russia” and the Deputy Prim e Minister of Russia, Minister of Internal Affairs Anatoly Kulikov, spoke in support of the blockade.

In his address on 21 Septem ber 1997, the Chechen President Aslan Maskhadov stated that “the Republic has in fact been encircled by a blockade; attem pts are being m ade for inform ational isolation of Chechnya.”

4.2. Info rmatio n Blo ckade during the Seco nd War (1999- ?)

Im m ediately after the beginning of the second m ilitary cam paign in Chechnya, journalists, politicians, governm ent representatives and experts once again started discussing the issue of the information blockade. The state officials made no secret of the fact that Russia had already practically instituted such a blockade in Chechnya. O n 21 O ctober 1999, Press Minister Mikhail Lesin stated that “the efforts by international terrorists, w ho entrenched them selves in Chechnya to run the inform ation blockade w ith the help of foreign television stations, are not having any serious effect.” O n 12 January 2000, the Secretary of the Russian Security Council (currently the Minister of Defence), Sergei Ivanov, announced during a press conference that “the reconstruction of the full-fledged operation of the local m edia in parts of Chechnya liberated by the Federal Forces w ill put an end to the inform ation blockade w hich the citizens of this Republic have been living in recently.”

O ther officials attem pted to disprove the existence of the inform ation blockade of Chechnya, in all probability understanding that any action of the Governm ent to distort inform ation or block its M ED IA SITUATIO N

IN

C HECHNYA

237

distribution w as in violation of the Russian Constitution and the existing legislation. In Decem ber 1999, the Director of the Departm ent of Inform ation and Press of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Vladim ir Rakhm anin, answ ered the follow ing to a question by an Egyptian journalist regarding the inform ation blockade: “I do not agree w ith the term ‘inform ation blockade’. Furtherm ore, journalists do have the opportunity to visit the Northern Caucasus Region; how ever, w e have alw ays unam biguously and clearly w arned that issues w ith security m ay arise; these issues continue to rem ain. You know that there is active coverage of the Chechen situation, not only by the Russian, but also by the Western m edia. If you have any specific com plaints regarding the visits organized by the Russian Inform ation Centre, I believe w e m ay deal w ith those as w e go. They in no w ay reflect the policy of inform ation openness w hich is im plem ented by the Russian side in regard to the events in Chechnya and the Northern Caucasus.”

Meanw hile, representatives of Chechnya in Aslan Maskhadov’s Governm ent as w ell as the pro-Moscow functionaries continued to m ake statem ents regarding the blockade. In his 21 April 2000 interview to the Kommersant new spaper, Aslan Maskhadov said that “the harsh inform ation blockade w as a part of the plan for the second Chechen w ar… Russian m edia som etim es spread hair-raising tales.

For instance, inform ation w as distributed about m y supposedly fleeing abroad, w hen at the tim e I w as in Grozny.” The Secretary of the Chechen Security Council, Rudnik Dudaev, virtually supported the w ords of his adversary in his ow n interview to the M oskovskie novosti new spaper. He said that “the Republic has for years lived in an inform ation blockade; few new spapers reach us, the radio does not w ork: jam m ers have been installed everyw here. The m ilitary claim that these are to jam the rebels’ transm itters, w hile in reality, the rebels have m uch m ore advanced m eans of com m unication, and jam m ers do not hinder them .”

O ver the course of the year 2000, several hum an rights organizations cam e forw ard w ith statem ents of protest against the inform ation blockade im posed by the Russians. O n 5 February, the “Soldiers’ Mothers of St. Petersburg” association distributed a statem ent outlining the causes of the Second War and the events preceding it. The statem ent reads, “at the suggestion of the ‘w ar party’ (w hich includes politicians, m ilitary people and industrial entrepreneurs, KGB people, as w ell as the m ilitary not interested in a m ilitary reform ) the m ajority of Russians blam ed [for explosions in Moscow ] everything 238

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

on the m ythical ‘Chechen terrorists’. This w as the beginning of the propagandistically w ell prepared Second Chechen War, w hich is no less bloody than the first.” O n the list of dem ands put forth by the “Soldiers’ Mothers of St. Petersburg”, there are several item s regarding the m edia: “to end the inform ation blockade of the events in Chechnya; to give the journalists an opportunity to carry out their professional duties unim peded; to provide for their security.”

O n 31 O ctober, the Fifth General Meeting of the Helsinki Civil Assem bly in Baku adopted a docum ent w hich called for an im m ediate end to the w ar in Chechnya. The Assem bly expressed its serious concern over the inform ation blockade of the m edia in Russia and other countries, and appealed to journalists to inform the w orld com m unity in all countries of the events in Chechnya m ore fully, in order to objectively prom ote an end to the w ar.

5 . Pro paganda After th e establish m en t of th e in form ation blockade, represen tatives of th e Russian m ilitary com m an d an d Govern m en t practically establish ed a m on opoly on th e distribution of in form ation from Ch ech n ya. O n ly durin g th e first m on th s of th e Secon d Cam paign did Russian an d foreign journ alists attem pt to w ork on th e territory of th e Republic in depen den tly, usin g th eir righ t to freely collect an d prom ulgate in form ation . How ever, follow in g several in stan ces of deten tion of large groups of foreign journ alists (see Appen dix) an d th e arrest of a correspon den t of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, An drei Babitsky, on ch arges of supportin g th e Ch ech en separatists, th e m ajority of th e Russian m edia outlets h ave been forced to use on ly th e official sources, w ith n o opportun ity to con firm th e in form ation received.

The establishm ent of harsh control over the w ork of journalists w as preceded by several sim ilarly harsh statem ents from the authorities. Thus, on 16 Novem ber 1999, an official representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Vladim ir Rakhm anin, accused the Western m edia of “biased coverage of the situation in the Northern Caucasus”. O n 29 March 2000, Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov stated that “lately, an inform ation w ar has been w aged on Russia in regard to the events in the Northern Caucasus. Attem pts are m ade to create an unfavourable and one-sided im age of Russia, not just of the state, but of Russian society as a w hole. Unfortunately, even respected figures of culture and science fall into this propaganda trap in the West.”

M ED IA SITUATIO N

IN

C HECHNYA

239

A m onth earlier, the sam e Igor Ivanov had announced that, “firm ness and openness constitute the priorities of Russia’s inform ation policy in the Northern Caucasus. We understand very w ell w ho is doing it and w hy. That is precisely the reason for us to display, on the one hand, firm ness, and on the other openness. We are not hiding anything in the Northern Caucasus; w e have nothing to hide. We w ant to restore law fulness and constitutionality, w e w ant the people of the Chechen Republic to live according to the law, the sam e law that the peoples of our country live by. We w ill reach that goal.”

Indicative of the new inform ation policy w as the 25 May 2000 m eeting betw een the Secretary of the Russian Security Council, Sergei Ivanov, and the m anagem ent of Moscow ’s leading m edia outlets. The m edia w as represented by the state agencies ITAR-TASS and RIA-N ovosti, the state television stations O RT and RTR, as w ell as the independent Interfax new s agency, N TV television station, and the new spapers Kommersant, M oskovskie novosti, Pravda, Argumenty i fakty, Komsomolskaya Pravda, Segodnya, and N ezavisimaya gazeta. The m eeting w as also attended by Press Minister Mikhail Lesin, Presidential Aide Sergei Yastrzhem bsky, and Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs, Igor Zubov. Events in Chechnya served as the m ajor topic of discussion. The attending editors-in-chief w ere told that “the Chechen rebels num ber 1,500 m en, w ith about 600 m ercenaries, prim arily from Arabic countries. Many of the m ercenaries are not in the best of condition, as they suffer from a lack of m edical attention, a shortage of w eapons, etc.”

This m eeting not only established the state’s m onopoly over the inform ation from Chechnya, but also secured the officially created right for the State to engage in propaganda, or prom ulgate false inform ation, conducive to distorting the real events in Chechnya.

State officials used propaganda during the first m ilitary cam paign as w ell; how ever, w ith the advent of the Second War, the inform ation they distributed lacked both logic and com m on sense. The official sources w ere not too concerned w ith the fact that som e tim e after it w as circulated, the inform ation they served to the public w as disproved or looked rather dubious even to people w ith no m ilitary experience. For instance, on 6 O ctober 1999, the ITAR-TASS agency quoted one of the leaders of the Northern Caucasus Military District in reporting that “the Chechen guerrillas put m ines in apartm ent buildings, and detonate them w hen the federal air forces appear. This is done in order to set the population of Chechnya against the Federal Forces in the Northern Caucasus. At the sam e tim e, the m ilitary 240

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

claim that there is grow ing discontentm ent am ong the Chechen civilian population about the actions of the rebel groups.”

The carelessness of inform ation distribution even led to inconsistencies in geography. O n 4 May 2000, m any Russian agencies reported, citing their m ilitary sources, that “on 3 May, betw een the Chechen villages of Makhkety and Avtury, a squadron of extrem ists w as destroyed in an am bush. The rebels lost 18 m en.” In reality, the aforem entioned villages are located in different districts, w ith a large distance and several m ountains betw een them .

Judging by the persistence of the m ilitary sources, the distributed disinform ation w as m eant to change the attitude of the Russian population tow ards the m ilitant Chechen separatists. O n 6 June 2000, the Joint Chief of Staff in Chechnya, General Gennady Troshev, announced that Aslan Maskhadov w as w ounded. “In all of his phone conversations and in our radio intercepts, Maskhadov’s articulation is different, w e sense som e bew ilderm ent on his part.” O n the sam e day, Maskhadov said in an interview to the Spanish EFE new s agency that “the reports about m y being w ounded are just disinform ation from the Russian m ilitary.”

O ver the course of the second cam paign, the m ost popular subject of the official com m entaries and interview s w as the announcem ent of the end of the w ar. For instance, on 26 June 2000, the Joint Chief of Staff in Chechnya, Gennady Troshev, stated that “on the territory of Chechnya, the w ar as such is over.” He also stated that the Federal Forces “are not conducting any offensives, nor any air or artillery strikes.” The sam e day, Interfax and the M ilitary N ews Agency issued reports of “the m ilitary air forces conducting 11 to 12 flights of SU-25 attack aircraft, tw o flights of AN-26 and AN-30 reconnaissance aircraft, and over 30 flights of MI-24, MI-8 and MI-26 helicopters.”

O n 8 August 2001, the ITAR-TASS agency cited the m ilitary in a distributed report w hich a w ell-know n hum an rights organization, Mem orial, view ed as a provocation. It appeared that the objective of this provocation w as the m ilitary’s desire to convince the Russian public, w ith the help of ITAR-TASS, that Mem orial had served as an “accom plice of terrorists”. By im plication, this report echoed the story of the m oney allegedly allotted for buying off Russian journalists. The ITAR-TASS report circulated under the title, “Chechen separatists are trying to use som e of the hum an rights activists and refugees as tools of the inform ation w ar.” Citing the m ilitary, the report described a certain letter from Maskhadov, allegedly forw arded by him to Mem orial, addressed to Ibragim Yakh’ev and Mariam Yandieva. In this letter, M ED IA SITUATIO N

IN

C HECHNYA

241

Maskhadov supposedly thanks the hum an rights activists for their “significant contribution to the freedom fight of the Chechen people against the infidels and traitor nationals.”

According to the ITAR-TASS inform ation, Maskhadov recom m ends “to form alize and register w ith the Russian Ministry of Justice new refugee organizations w hich w ill defend the rights of the citizens of Ichkeria,” as w ell as “report to the West and those Russian m edia outlets that are friendly to us the m aterials regarding the hum anitarian catastrophe in the cam ps of Ingushetia and the atrocities of the Federal Forces in their dealings w ith the civilian population.” To provide inform ation support to the separatist activities, “it is suggested to activate the cam paign for the violation of the refugees’ rights, and coverage of the acts of protest in the Groznenskiy rabochiy and N ovaya gazeta new spapers, as w ell as in the Human Rights and Liberties m agazine.”

O n 10 August, Mem orial forw arded a statem ent to the Director General of ITAR-TASS, dem anding that it be published. This relied on the regulations set out in Articles 43, 44, and 45 of the Russian Media Law. The statem ent w as never published.

Starting w ith the August 1996 signing of the accord betw een Alexander Lebed and Aslan Maskhadov, the official sources of ITARTASS used the term “the Chechen trace” in various contexts, prim arily in the accusatory sense. Even w hen there w as no reason to m ention the Chechens, the authorities nonetheless used this term indirectly in com m enting on a crim inal act – w hether this w as an explosion, currency counterfeit, or terrorist training. For instance: “there w as an explosion at such and such a location; no ‘Chechen trace’ w as found.”

5.1. The “New ” Info rmatio n Po licy. The beginning of the Second Chechen War w as preceded by the developm ent of a “new ” inform ation policy. Military analysts and Krem lin-associated experts began to circulate, w ith the help of the m edia, opinions w hich w ere m eant to justify the restrictions that w ould be placed on journalists.

O n 7 O ctober 1999, the Kommersant new spaper published an article entitled, “The New Inform ation Policy of the Joint Staff w ent out of date at once”. The article offered an analysis of the m ilitary com m anders’ actions in regard to the w ar in Chechnya and the m edia. As the new spaper put it, “soon after the end of the First Chechen War, the form er Chief of Staff of the Federal Forces Group, Colonel General Leontiy Shevtsov, adm itted the follow ing: ‘Now I understand that the w ar cannot be w on w ithout inform ation support. We had to m ake friends w ith the press, not to potter w ith them .’”

242

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

According to Kommersant, the Joint Chief of Staff, Anatoly Kvashnin, had personally prohibited representatives of non-state m edia from entering the city of Mozdok. Reporters’ trips to the front lines ceased as w ell. The Ministry of Defence executive staff and the Joint Staff w ere also forbidden, by an order of the Defence Minister him self, to interact w ith journalists directly, bypassing the m ilitary press service offices. How ever, as Kommersant indicated, the journalists could not obtain any inform ation at the press service offices either, since no inform ation w as being given.

The beginning of the new inform ation policy w as signified by num erous reports, circulated through the new s agencies. The reports cited anonym ous “m ilitary sources”, w ho inform ed the public about the grow ing resentm ent am ong the civilian population in Chechnya tow ards the rebels, and about Baltic, Azeri, and Ukrainian w om en snipers am ong the rebels. Around the sam e tim e, the ITAR-TASS reported the infam ous snippet about “the Chechen guerrillas” w ho “put m ines in apartm ent buildings, and detonate them w hen the federal air forces appear.”

The sam e issue of the Kommersant quoted Colonel General Valery Manilov, Deputy Joint Chief of Staff and the m an responsible for the inform ation policy of the Russian arm ed forces. At a m ilitary press service staff m eeting, he said that “one m ust act like a real professional: to say a lot, yet to say nothing.”

5.2. The Russian Info rmatio n Centre. The new inform ation policy in regard to covering the Second Chechen War im plied the creation of centres to serve as official inform ation sources. There w ere several of these during the first three years of the w ar; the Russian Inform ation Centre (RIC) w as the first of its kind.

The RIC w as created by a special Decree, 1538-R, signed by the then Prim e Minister Vladim ir Putin on 4 O ctober 1999. The Decree contained four item s: the first announced the creation of the centre; the second w as an instruction to form an inter-departm ental w orking group consisting of representatives of the m inistries of Internal Affairs, Defence, Foreign Affairs, Justice, Nationality Affairs and Special Situations, as w ell as the State Custom s Com m ittee, Federal Security Service, Federal Tax Police Service, Federal Border Safety Service, and the National State Television and Radio Com pany. The third item directed the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to provide assistance to the new ly created RIC using the Ministry’s ow n press centre. The fourth item secured the building of this m inistry’s press centre for the M ED IA SITUATIO N

IN

C HECHNYA

243

entire RIC inform ation support group. Later, a new online inform ation resource w as created, at <http://w w w.infocentre.ru>.

Mikhail Margelov and FSB General Alexander Mikhailov w ere appointed as the directors of the RIC. Prior to February 1996, Mikhailov served as the Head of the FSK (later FSB) Centre for Public Relations and of a sim ilar departm ent w ithin the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Margelov w as best know n for his links w ith the Video International Group, created and controlled by the Press Minister, Mikhail Lesin, as w ell as for his activities as the Head of the Russian President’s O ffice for Public Relations. In 1984-86, he w orked as an interpreter for the International Departm ent of the Central Com m ittee of the Com m unist Party, and in 1986-89 taught Arabic at the Higher School of the KGB. Currently, Margelov is a senator, a m em ber of Russia’s Federation Council, and the head of the Com m ittee for International Affairs of the Upper Cham ber of the Russian Parliam ent. While participating in a Radio Russia program m e on 19 O ctober 1999, Margelov declared that “the idea to create the (RIC) cam e from Vladim ir Putin”.

The RIC w as created on a perm anent basis and, according to Margelov, is still going to be in existence w hen the w ar in Chechnya is over. The Russian authorities have voiced an intention to use the RIC in the future as w ell, to cover significant external and internal events. How ever, currently the RIC functions are lim ited to supporting its w ebsite, and nothing m uch beyond that.

O n 14 O ctober 1999, the press service of the Urals Military District forw arded to the m edia the recom m endations of the RIC concerning the term s w hich the m ilitary and journalists w ere to use w hen covering events in Chechnya. For instance, one could not use the term “Federal Forces and troops”; instead, the latter should be called “units and subunits of the Arm ed Forces of the Russian Federation, and Ministry of Internal Affairs Troops, acting against the separatist and terrorist form ations”. “Military action” w as to be referred to as “special operations of units and subunits of the Arm ed Forces of the Russian Federation, and Ministry of Internal Affairs Troops, for the liberation of the territory of Chechnya from the guerrillas entrenched therein.” “Directed strikes” w ere to be called “strikes directed at destroying the infrastructure and hum an pow er of the international terrorists.” O ne w as also instructed to refrain from using the w ords “refugees” and “filtration”.

During the first m onths of its existence, the RIC offered to Russian and foreign journalists group tours in Chechnya, accom panied by 244

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

m ilitary officers. O n 30 Decem ber 1999, the RIC issued a statem ent w hich stressed that “since its w ork began (on 1 O ctober 1999), the RIC has organized trips to the Chechen Republic for m ore than 140 journalists, representing 75 foreign m edia outlets.”

Bulletins and other m aterials distributed by the RIC w ere not utilized by journalists, except for the representatives of the Russian state m edia. The Press Minister had to adm it during his press conference at the RIC on 21 O ctober 1999 that, “35 tapes w ere sent to various m edia outlets – foreign ones – w ith recordings of w hat is happening on the territory of Chechnya. No television station show ed the tapes, they did not receive the due attention.”

From February 2000, the press conferences started to be irregular, the last one occurring on 6 April 2001.

5.3. The O ffice o f Presidential Aide Sergei Yastrzhembsky. A new state structure, the O ffice of Sergei Yastrzhem bsky, an Aide of the then Acting President Vladim ir Putin, becam e the second inform ation centre delegated w ith covering the events in Chechnya.

O n 20 January 2000, Vladim ir Putin, in his capacity as Acting President, signed a Decree nam ing Yastrzhem bsky as a Presidential Aide. He w as delegated w ith co-ordinating the inform ation and analytical w ork of the federal executive structures participating in conducting the counter-terrorist operations in the Northern Caucasus, as w ell as interacting w ith the m edia. In accordance w ith the Decree, the Head of the Presidential Adm inistration w as to form an office w ith 14 people to support the activities of the Presidential Aide as w ell as approve its structure. The official report em phasized that Sergei Yastrzhem bsky’s authority w as lim ited to the dates of the counter-terrorist operation in the Northern Caucasus.

Putin’s Press Secretary, Alexei Grom ov, answ ering an ITAR-TASS reporter’s question as to w hy the appointm ent w as m ade specifically at that tim e, explained that “the operation in Chechnya is now entering its concluding phase. That is w hy w e need the m axim um concentration of the efforts of all the organs of pow er, in order to adequately represent the events in Chechnya and bring extensive inform ation regarding these events to the Russian and foreign public.

Vladim ir Putin sees our goal precisely in that.”

Yastrzh em bsky’s office prepared th e Rules of Accreditation for Visitin g th e Ch ech en Republic. As stated in th e pream ble, accreditation w as necessary “for the com plete and objective coverage of the coun ter-terrorist operation con ducted by th e Russian m ilitary forces M ED IA SITUATIO N

IN

C HECHNYA

245

in th e Ch ech en Republic.” Wh ile th e Rules refer to Russian law s as w ell as in tern ation al agreem en ts, legal experts h ave foun d a substan tial n um ber of violation s of Russian legislation in th em . Th e prin cipal violation is th e in troduction of th e very in stitution of accreditation , w h ich is provided for n eith er by Russian law n or in tern ation al agreem en ts.

Journalists w orking on the territory of the Chechen Republic m ust “fully adhere to the internal regulations of the Joint Staff in the Northern Caucasus, as w ell as com ply w ith orders of the Presidential Aide’s O ffice and m ilitary staff w hich accom panies the journalists.”

O ne supposes that the principal item s of the Rules are contained in the repressive paragraphs w hich stipulate that journalists “are prohibited to independently travel in the Chechen Republic and conduct interview s w ith the m ilitary personnel w ithout perm ission from the representatives of the press centres and the m ilitary authorities of the Russian Federation. In accordance w ith the existing legislation and international norm s, one is prohibited to distribute inform ation w hich contains the follow ing: • nam es of the m ilitary units and their perm anent locations; • com bat orders of units and subunits, or the location of the com m and points; • personal data of the m ilitary personnel; • the quantity of the personnel and technical equipm ent; • the transportation routes of the m ilitary units, subunits, and personnel.”

The Rules also enum erate the punishm ents for violations: a journalist m ay be stripped of his/her accreditation “upon violation of the m edia legislation of the Russian Federation, or the present Rules; for m ultiple (over tw o tim es in a six-m onth period) instances of m isplacing the accreditation card; upon dism issal from the m edia outlet w hich he/she represented at accreditation; upon cessation of activity of the m edia outlet w hich he/she represented at accreditation; upon violation of the internal regulations of the Joint Staff in the Northern Caucasus.”

The paragraphs outlining the m otives for prosecution of journalists appear rather peculiar from a legal standpoint. For instance, one of them stipulates that a journalist m ay be prosecuted for “distribution of calum nious inform ation concerning m ilitary personnel, as w ell as of inform ation w hich contradicts the actual events of the counter-terrorist operation in the Northern Caucasus, as confirm ed by a legally valid decision of a court w hich review ed the case in question; also, for 246

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

refusal on the part of the journalist or the m edia outlet he/she represented at accreditation to offer apologies or publish a refutation of the m aterial w hich em ployed inform ation contradicting the actual events, as confirm ed by a legally valid court decision.”

Indeed, according to the Law O n the State of Em ergency, dated 17 May 1991, journalists on professional duty m ay be lim ited in their rights. How ever, neither a state of em ergency nor m artial law has been declared on the territory of the Chechen Republic. O n the contrary, the Media Law, adopted on 27 Decem ber 1991, and referred to by the authors of the Rules, includes Article 48, w hich stipulates that the accrediting institution is to prom ote the w ork of journalists, not im pede it. The other tw o paragraphs of the Rules, concerning punishm ent for “distribution of calum nious inform ation concerning m ilitary personnel”, and the delegation of Sergei Yastrzhem bsky w ith the authority to punish those journalists found guilty, appear just as ridiculous and unlaw ful.

In addition to the O ffice of Presidential Aide Yastrzhem bsky, an order issued by the Russian Defence Minister also created an inform ation centre, attached to the O perative Headquarters for Directing the Counter-Terrorist O peration in the Northern Caucasian Military District. Sergei Yastrzhem bsky w as appointed to oversee the activities of the centre, w hile Colonel General Valery Manilov becam e its m anager, w ith the respective heads of inform ation offices of the m inistries of Defence, Internal Affairs, Em ergencies, Justice, as w ell as the Federal Security Services, Federal State Border Services, and the Federal Agency for State Com m unications and Inform ation as his deputies.

Alm ost im m ediately, Yastrzhem bsky com m enced his activities by evaluating those journalists the Krem lin considered “disagreeable”. O n 3 February 2000, he com m ented on the situation w ith Andrei Babitsky, stating that “the initiative for exchanging Babitsky for Russian m ilitary servicem en cam e from the Chechen ‘field com m anders’. Babitsky accepted the offer; thus, the Federal Centre and Russia’s leaders take no responsibility for the fate of this Radio Liberty correspondent.” O n 14 February 2000, Yastrzhem bsky declared that “the situation w ith the correspondent of the French Libération appears to be rather edifying, especially for foreign journalists.” Anne Nivat, the correspondent in question, had been detained by FSB operatives at a private hom e in Chechnya.

O n 20 March 2000, the creation of a new, 20-person Inform ation Departm ent w ithin the Russian President’s O ffice w as announced.

According to Yastrzhembsky, the “core of the department w ill comprise M ED IA SITUATIO N

IN

C HECHNYA

247

Yastrzhem bsky’s staff, ‘veterans’ of the Chechnya inform ation w ar.”

In addition, Yastrzhem bsky intended to invite journalists, diplom ats, and econom ic and legal experts to w ork for the new departm ent. O n 19 April, Igor Porshnev, the form er Director of the Executive Political Inform ation Unit of the form ally independent Interfax new s agency, w as appointed as its head. Putin’s related Decree stated that the Inform ation Departm ent w as form ed as part of the Presidential Adm inistration in order to perfect the process of supporting the head of state in the inform ation policy area. The President delegated his Aide, Yastrzhem bsky as the executive director of the Inform ation Departm ent.

The Decree also stated that its personnel w ould be recruited from the cadre of the Presidential Aide Support Staff.

O n 3 February 2000, the process of accrediting journalists to cover the situation in Grozny as w ell as in Chechnya as a w hole began. According to Yastrzhem bsky, the first group of journalists w as scheduled to depart for Mozdok as early as 7-8 February, provided w ith three buses, a helicopter, and an additional convoy helicopter. As reported by Yastrzhem bsky’s O ffice, on 22 Septem ber 2000, 1,275 journalists w ere accredited to w ork in the counter-terrorist operation zone, w ith 571 being foreign reporters. From O ctober 1999 to 25 Septem ber 2000, 40 group tours w ere organized, consisting prim arily of foreign correspondents; the total num ber of people w ho visited the region as part of these tours w as 571.

In addition to conducting these special tours for journalists, Yastrzhem bsky’s O ffice continued to distribute inform ation as the only official source thereof. How ever, journalists questioned the quality of this inform ation.

In early February 2000, the Russian m edia reported a certain Directive 912, distributed by Yastrzhem bsky, and stipulating a rather strict regim e for the m ilitary to deal w ith journalists: “visiting hospitals and photographing the w ounded is prohibited; likew ise prohibited is the conducting of interview s unless the journalist is accom panied by a press service staff m em ber; no inform ation of the lost and w ounded is to be given.”

O n 15 February 2000, the state RIA-N ovosti agency reported Yastrzhem bsky’s order to close the city of Grozny for tw o to three w eeks to everyone, including journalists.

In late February 2000, the Russian authorities started a scandal concerning a report from Chechnya aired by the Germ an N-25 television station. O leg Blotsky, a reporter from Izvestia, declared that he w as the author of the televised report; and that the m eaning of the com m entary 248

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

added by Frank Hefling distorted the essence of the events described in the report. As a result, the Germ an journalist w as fired by the station, w hile O leg Blotsky w as soon after “rew arded” by receiving access to exclusive m aterials from President Putin’s archive to w rite a book about Putin. O n 1 March, Yastrzhem bsky called the dism issal of Hefling, “w ho distorted the events in Chechnya”, “an exam ple of professional approach to one’s w ork.” O n the sam e day, he stated that he “w ould be glad to at least receive apologies from the French Le M onde and Libération new spapers, as w ell as from som e others.”

At the sam e tim e, Yastrzhem bsky started his “cold w ar” against the Russian m edia outlets w hich had openly expressed their contem pt for the w ork of the Presidential Aide’s O ffice, and above all the activities of the Russian arm y in Chechnya. O n 13 March 2000, he accused several Moscow periodicals, such as N ovye izvestia and N ovaya gazeta, as w ell as the N TV television station, of “publishing negative inform ation regarding the actions of the federal governm ent,” declaring that the m edia outlets in question received funding from abroad to support their positions. The editors of N ovaya gazeta intended to sue Yastrzhem bsky for his com m ents.

N ezavisimaya gazeta served as another object of accusations for its interview w ith Aslan Maskhadov. O n 1 March 2001, Yastrzhem bsky expressed his regret about the fact that “another of Maskhadov’s nonsensical view s w as published by a respected Russian new spaper.” He explained the appearance of the interview in N ezavisimaya gazeta as dow n to “the im perfections of the Russian legislation,” adding that “the Dum a m ust take notice of this.” Yastrzhem bsky then directed his anger at the French Le Point m agazine, w hich also published an interview w ith Maskhadov. Yastrzhem bsky declared that Maskhadov w as “trying to cover up his w eaknesses w ith inform ation activity.”

O n 28 May 2001, Yastrzhem bsky expressed his regret concerning the publication of another interview w ith Maskhadov by N ovaya gazeta. O nce again, he suggested to am end the legislation w ith a regulation w hich w ould provide for “toughened sanctions for providing air tim e or publication space for propagating extrem ist view s.”

O n 31 August 2001, follow ing an interview w ith Maskhadov published by Kommersant, Yastrzhem bsky m ade a statem ent of sharp criticism of the publication, declaring that it w as “absolutely unacceptable for the Russian m edia to give the floor to the Chechen rebel leaders.”

O n 3 Novem ber 2001, Valery Yakov of N ovye izvestia published an article entitled “The Krem lin, tangled up in lies”; the article cited the data provided by Yastrzhem bsky’s O ffice in regard to the Russian M ED IA SITUATIO N

IN

C HECHNYA

249

m ilitary personnel killed during the tw o years of the second Chechen cam paign. Yastrzhem bsky’s O ffice claim ed the total num ber w as 3,438 m en, w ith 2,136 of the Ministry of Defence, and 1,196 of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Meanw hile, as far back as May 2001, Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov reported that the losses of m ilitary personnel totalled 4,726 m en, w ith 2,026 of the Defence Ministry.

There is one exam ple of a legal dispute. O n 1 Novem ber 2000, the Nazransk District Court of Ingushetia considered a com plaint against Yastrzhem bsky by Ruslan Mutsolgov, a resident of the village of Aram khi. The plaintiff asked the court to disprove a report, issued by Yastrzhem bsky on 10 August, that a m edical facility of Ingushetia’s Dzheikhar District hosted and treated w ounded Chechen rebels. The court obliged Yastrzhem bsky to issue a refutation.

O n 2 March 2000, President Putin provided the first public evaluation of Yastrzhem bsky’s activities: “He did not just com e to w ork for the Presidential Adm inistration. I w ould like to em phasize that he cam e to w ork here precisely on account of our personal relations. He assum ed responsibility for an area that w as not very pleasant.”

5.4. United Info rmatio n Centre o f the Jo int Staff o f the Federal Fo rces in Chechnya. In 2000, General Valery Manilov, First Deputy of the Head of General Staff of Russia’s Arm ed Forces, becam e another official inform ation source. Manilov had been relieved of his duties as the Secretary of the Security Council in Septem ber 1996 and transferred to the General Staff of the Russian arm y. Several m onths after his June 2001 discharge, he w as elected on 1 Novem ber 2001 as head of the Media Union’s Military Journalists’ Guild, a proKrem lin organization created as an alternative to the Russian Union of Journalists.

All of Manilov’s m ilitary career had in one w ay or another been linked w ith propaganda: in 1965, he served in the Kom som ol organizations of the Soviet Arm y; from 1969 to 1972, he w as a staff m em ber of the m ilitary N a boevom postu new spaper of the Zabaikalsky Military District; later, he w orked for the USSR’s chief m ilitary publication, Krasnaya zvezda. In the latter years of the USSR’s existence, he served as the head of the Inform ation Departm ent at the Ministry of Defence.

O n 26 January 2000, the then Acting President Putin signed a Decree appointing Manilov the head of the United Inform ation Centre of the Joint Staff of the Federal Forces in Chechnya. In the w ords of Yastrzhem bsky, “starting today, only tw o new sm akers have the 250

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

state authority to inform the journalists of the m ilitary action in Chechnya. The tw o are General Manilov and m yself.”

Journalists constantly rem arked on the inconsistencies betw een the inform ation provided by Yastrzhem bsky and Manilov. Alexander Chuikov, a reporter for the M oskovsky komsomolets, in his 31 O ctober 2000 article entitled “The Nightingale’s Song of the Defence Ministry”, w rote about a café explosion in the Chechen village of Chiriyurt. Yastrzhem bsky’s O ffice reported the total of seven people dead, w ith four m ilitary servicem en dying im m ediately, six m ore w ounded, w ith one of the latter dying en route to the hospital. O n the other hand, the Ministry of Defence reported only four people dead and three w ounded as a result “of the rebels’ attack in the past day”.

The lack of objective inform ation from m ilitary sources w as noted on 3 March 2000 by O leg Mironov, the Hum an Rights Envoy in Russia. Mironov stated that “the m ilitary conceals inform ation regarding hum an rights violations in Chechnya.” This w as Mironov’s reaction to visiting the Northern Caucasus region together w ith the (then) United Nations High Com m issioner for Hum an Rights, Mary Robinson.

General Manilov’s first assessm ent of journalists’ w ork cam e in his statem ent on 16 Decem ber 1999. Manilov declared that the foreign inform ation agencies had becom e an object of m anipulations by the Chechen rebels. This w as his reaction to the events in Grozny, w hen several dozen soldiers and officers died as a result of an offensive by the Russian m ilitary arm oured units.

Journalists rem arked that Manilov’s principal activity as a source of inform ation w as distributing the so-called “counter-inform ation”, designed to create a negative public im age of the Chechens. O n 10 August 2000, the Press Centre of the Joint Staff reported that “in the villages of Gekhi and Shali, large facilities for production of artificial vodka w ere uncovered. A large am ount of alcohol-containing substances w as confiscated, along w ith the spirits ready for bottling.”

Tw o years later, on 6 July 2002, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Ivanov, the head of the Executive Research Subunit of the Federal Security Service Departm ent for the Chechen Republic, reported that “all subunits of the Joint Staff are exercising control over the quality of the food and w ater. How ever, it is conceivable that the civilian population m ay suffer from terrorist acts em ploying poisonous m aterials. This w as the case in the Guderm es District, w here three children died in the spring from such poisonings. During that period, the Federal Forces confiscated from the rebel groups directed by Aslan Maskhadov, Rizvan Chitigov, Movsar Baraev, Islam Chalaev, Khaled M ED IA SITUATIO N

IN

C HECHNYA

251

Sedaev, and Rizvan Akhm adov, a significant am ount of poisonous m aterials, nam ely m ercuric chloride and arsenic, as w ell as nearly tw o litres of potassium cyanide solution, and several dozen litres of poisoned vodka.” O ver the course of the Second War, the subject of vodka surfaced three tim es; earlier, on 17 April 2000, a representative of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Press Centre in the Northern Caucasus told the ITAR-TASS agency that “in Shali District, nearly 40 litres of artificial vodka w ere confiscated.”

5.5. The Head o f the FSB Centre fo r Public Relatio ns (later, the Head o f the D epartment o f Assistance Pro grammes), Alexander Zdano vich. General Alexander Zdanovich’s participation in distributing inform ation on the events in Chechnya w as m inim al during the initial m onths of the second Chechen cam paign. How ever, later on his role becam e rather significant, especially in the public accusatory statem ents against journalists. O n 16 Decem ber 1999, he stated that the Associated Press and Reuters reports of the death of several dozen Russian soldiers and officers w ere “a part of the political plan for the fouling of Russia”. In Zdanovich’s w ords, “it is quite clear that these ‘new s reports’ serve as evidence of the foreign secret services conducting an active operation using journalists.”

The FSB’s role in distributing inform ation cam e dow n to the Russian m edia participating in certain “inform ation diversions”, directed at discrediting the Chechen separatists. As a rule, the inform ation distributed by the FSB w as at a later date either disproved by journalists or else not confirm ed by the events. For instance, on 5 Septem ber 2000, the RosBusinessConsulting agency cited the FSB Departm ent for the Chechen Republic in reporting that “Khattab, an international terrorist, has reportedly left the territory of Chechnya for Tajikistan, to participate in m ilitary action in Central Asia. According to our sources, Khattab arrived at the conclusion that the rebels’ resistance to the Federal Forces w as futile.”

O n 29 March 2001, the KM -N ovosti agency cited the FSB in reporting that “on a federal ‘Caucasus’ highw ay, in the vicinity of the village of Dzhalka, not far from Guderm es, an explosive device w as found. It w as constructed out of ten landm ines connected in a single detonation chain. The FSB staff noted that a large group of foreign journalists w as supposed to pass along this area of the highw ay today.”

O n 30 April 2001, the N TV television station aired as part of its new s report a story of a 30-year old Chechen m an, w ho appeared at the Voronezh Region Departm ent of the FSB and “confessed” to col252

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

laborating w ith the French intelligence service “under the code nam e of ‘Adventurer’.” The story did not specify the “agent’s” nam e; how ever, it m entioned that the person in question w as a Chechen, w ho at one tim e w orked as a press secretary for the form er Chairm an of the Suprem e Soviet of Russia, Ruslan Khazbulatov.

O n 10 August 2001, the Interfax agency reported a certain agreem ent betw een the FSB and the representatives of the leading Russian m edia outlets, regarding “collaboration in covering the actions of the special services.” The m eeting w as organized by Alexander Zdanovich, the head of the Departm ent of Assistance Program m es, w ho w as “inclined to constructively collaborate w ith the m edia”. The report did not identify a single m edia outlet or a representative thereof.

5.6. FSB Representative in Chechnya, Ilya Shabalkin. Finally, another official information source appeared in the form of FSB Colonel Ilya Shabalkin, w ho w as appointed as Representative of the Joint Staff of the Russian Forces in Chechnya. Shabalkin’s first appearance before journalists w as reported by the RIA-N ovosti agency on 28 January 2001. In late 1998, Colonel Shabalkin w as know n as a public relations officer at the FSB Departm ent in the Penza Region. O n 30 June 2000, the RTR television station aired a story from Penza, w ith Shabalkin com m enting on the court verdict regarding Sham il Basaev’s “recruiters”, a certain Alexander O bukhov and Alexei Nikonov. Shabalkin also appeared in print, in the 5 O ctober 2000 issue of the Sobesednik new spaper, again unm asking a Chechnya-related story. O n 6 Novem ber 2000, the O RT television station aired a report regarding a m urder attem pt on the head of the Guderm es District Adm inistration, Malika Gezim ieva. Nikolai Kudryashov, Anatoly Klyan, Ilya Shabalkin and Vladim ir O lkhovsky w ere credited w ith authoring the report, w hich w as produced w ith the assistance of the press service of the FSB’s Chechnya Departm ent.

Colonel Shabalkin’s role also concerned the reported “sensations”, w hich aim ed at changing the public opinion of the Chechen separatists. Journalists lacked any m eans of confirm ing such reports.

How ever, one assum es that the inform ation provided by Shabalkin w as not directed at analysts and experts; m ore likely, this w as an elem ent of the “inform ation w ar”.

O ne of Shabalkin’s m ajor fields of activity concerned the discrediting of journalists, as w ell as the distribution of inform ation regarding “the planned attacks on journalists”. O n 20 February 2002, he discussed a claim that N ovaya gazeta and its reporter, Anna Politkovskaya, M ED IA SITUATIO N

IN

C HECHNYA

253

w ere using the latter’s trips to Chechnya “to solve their financial problem s and disagreem ents w ith certain foundations” (see later section on Politkovskaya).

O n 1 April 2002, he declared that “in Chechnya, an attem pt to kidnap a group of journalists representing the REN -TV television station w as averted.” According to Shabalkin, the kidnapping w as planned by Islam Chalaev’s group, w hich had been responsible for all “notorious” kidnappings of journalists in Chechnya. The FSB claim ed that the crim inal group intended to dem and a ransom of one m illion dollars for the kidnapped journalists.

O n 10 March 2002, Shabalkin reported that “video m aterials have been found evidencing the involvem ent of Aslan Maskhadov, the leader of the Chechen rebels, in the planning and executing of terrorist acts. These m aterials, confirm ing Maskhadov’s personal instruction of terrorists, w ere found in the course of a special operation in the Chechen village of Starye Atagi.” The docum ents and video recordings w ere found in early March, but never show n on television.

6 . Ce ns o rs hip In contem porary Russian legal vocabulary, there exist the tw in notions of “denial of access to inform ation” and “im pedance of inform ation distribution”. These are used w henever the authorities seek to lim it journalists’ activities. The lack of a general censoring body has not protected journalists w orking on Russian territory from the actions of functionaries seeking to block constitutional rights to free access to, and distribution of, inform ation. The m ajority of these interdictory m easures are consolidated in various resolutions of the State Dum a and the Governm ent, and do not carry any legislative authority.

O n 14 Septem ber 1999, the State Dum a adopted a resolution “O n the Situation in the Republic of Dagestan and the Im m ediate Security Measures on the Territory of the Russian Federation”. This resolution aim ed at creating a special regim e for the state m edia to report on m ilitary action. Specifically, it established a m oratorium on reports from the com bat zone of the unlaw ful m ilitary units’ activity. In the event that television com panies failed to execute the m oratorium , their licences w ould be annulled. The resolution also planned to establish a daily inform ation hour at the prim ary federal television stations, for the representatives of the m ilitary structures to have the floor.

O n 16 Septem ber 1999, the Press Ministry (the full nam e is the Ministry for the Activities of the Press, Television and Radio Broadcasting, and Mass Com m unications) distributed a statem ent w hich 254

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

stipulated, am ong other things, that “the use of the m edia for executing actions and distributing appeals directly prohibited by the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the law s on m edia and the fight against terrorism is unacceptable. At the sam e tim e, in recent days the em otional tension that exists in society has begun to find its w ays to certain m edia outlets in com pletely unacceptable form s… While until recently the Ministry had avoided the strict use of the entire system of m easures provided for by the legislation, it is (stating) the utter unacceptability of abuse of the m edia, and (recalling) the personal m oral and legal responsibility of all persons for the continuation of such a policy.”

O n the sam e day, the Periodicals Publishers Guild distributed its ow n statem ent voicing its: “serious concern over the quest of the State Dum a Deputies to lim it m edia activities under the pretence of the struggle w ith guerrillas and terrorists … How ever, w e tend to see a m anifestation of double standards and double m orality in the attem pts to introduce regulations on the m edia coverage of the events in the Northern Caucasus. Under the pretence of fighting terrorism and guerrilla w arfare, w hich, as dem onstrated by the experience of other states, w ill likely proceed for an extended period of tim e, certain political forces are seeking to test the technique of a local m oratorium on the freedom of speech and the activity of independent m edia … We appeal to the State Dum a of the Russian Federation to exclude from the draft of the resolution on terrorism any item s that lim it m edia activity and freedom of speech.”

O n 1 Decem ber 1999, the M ilitary N ews Agency cited a source in the Ministry of Defence in reporting that “the Ministry’s adm inistration has once again issued a directive for lim iting journalists’ access to inform ation regarding events in Chechnya.”

O n 21 Decem ber 1999, the M oskovskie novosti new spaper published an interview w ith Sergei Kovalyov, w ho stated that “those w ho oppose the actions of the Russian Governm ent in Chechnya are being categorically kept aw ay from the pages of m ost of the m ass m edia, and avoided by the m ost influential electronic m edia. Considering this inform ation blockade, the m ere fact that m y position is know n to som eone is surprising.”

O n 27 January 2000, the Germ an new spaper, Die Z eit, published an article by its Moscow correspondent, Michael Thum ann, w hich told the story of the independent N TV television station and its attem pts to circum vent the censorship barriers and tell its audience about the consequences of the w ar: “Arm ed w ith a hidden cam era, M ED IA SITUATIO N

IN

C HECHNYA

255

an N TV correspondent visited a m ilitary hospital in Rostov, w hich accom m odated the w ounded m ilitary personnel from Chechnya.

The journalist w as able to find out that 30 to 50 people died daily.

This figure (w as based on a) count of coffins w hich are shipped secretly, at night, from the Rostov railw ay station. The N TV journalists insist that the num ber of casualties exceeds the officially reported data by at least tw o tim es.”

O n 26 July 2001, the ITAR-TASS agency reported a new regulation for journalists travelling on the territory of Chechnya, outside the m ilitary base of the Joint Staff in the Northern Caucasus. The Joint Staff Press Centre stated that the journalists’ trips off the base w ere to be conducted only w hile accom panied by a press centre officer. O n 27 July, the Russian Union of Journalists issued a statem ent denouncing the decision to introduce new lim its on journalists’ activities.

6.1. Warnings o f the Press Ministry. According to the Law on Mass Media, the structures responsible for registering a m edia outlet are also responsible for issuing w arnings for violations of the existing legislation. The Law stipulates that there need to have been “m ultiple violations, over a period of tw elve m onths” before legal help is sought to close a m edia outlet. How ever, practically all violation w arnings issued to the m edia concerned the Law on the Fight against Terrorism , w hich becam e effective on 25 July 1998. Article 15 of that Law prohibits the distribution of inform ation w hich: “1) discloses special technical m eans and the tactics of a counter-terrorist operation; 2) m ay com plicate the execution of a counter-terrorist operation and create a hazard for the lives and health of the people w ho are located in the area w here a counter-terrorist operation is proceeding, or w ho are located outside the lim its of the said area; 3) serves for purposes of propaganda or justification of terrorism and extrem ism ; 4) concerns the staff of special units, m em bers of the executive staff responsible for directing a counter-terrorist operation, as w ell as individuals providing assistance in the execution of the said operation.”

Am endm ents to the Law on Mass Media, expanding it in light of the Law on the Fight against Terrorism , w ere adopted in the first reading on 20 Decem ber 2001. How ever, for reasons unknow n, the legislative process w as suspended. The State Dum a returned to the am endm ents in question on 23 O ctober 2002; strangely, this w as the day the Theatre Centre in Moscow w as captured. Justice Minister Yuri Chaika said, in his interview to the O RT state television, that “now the organs of justice have the right to issue w arnings to public 256

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

and religious organizations and the m edia regarding the inadm issibility of terrorist activities, as w ell as go to the law seeking to liquidate not only registered, but also unregistered associations, suspending their activities pending the court’s decision.”

Public resonance of the O ctober events in Moscow allow ed the Dum a deputies to adopt the am endm ents in the third (final) reading; the am endm ents w ere also confirm ed by the Upper Cham ber of the Russian Parliam ent.

But as m entioned already, the w arnings issued by the Press Ministry are based not on the Mass Media Law, as directed by Article 4 of this Law, but rather on the Terrorism Law. O n 17 August 1999, the Press Ministry forw arded telegram s to the m anagers of the leading television stations, O RT, RTR, N TV, TV Centre, and TV-6, w ith a request not to allow the Chechen rebels to have the floor. According to the 18 August 1999 issue of the Kommersant new spaper, there w ere in fact tw o types of telegram , w ith tw o som ew hat different texts (the differences are highlighted): “In light of the appearance in the inform ation and analytical program m es of certain [only in the N TV text] broadcasting organizations of stories containing statem ents by the leaders of Chechen guerrilla groups, the Ministry… inform s you of the follow ing: Article 4 of the Russian Federation Law O n Mass Media does not allow for ‘the use of the m edia for com m itting crim inally punishable acts, distribution of inform ation classified as a state or otherw ise legally protected secret, for advocating takeover of pow er, forceful change of the Constitutional order and integrity of the State, advocating national, class, social, or religious intolerance or dissension, and w ar propaganda.’ A preliminary analysis of the stories aired demonstrates that in certain cases the norms of the aforementioned Article were violated [only in the O RT text]. Abstaining from im plem enting the m easures provided for by the legislation, the Ministry requests that in the future, actions violating the norm s of Article 4 of the Russian Federation Law O n Mass Media should be avoided. The M inistry requests that you abstain from actions violating the norms of Article 4 of the Russian Federation Law O n M ass M edia [only in the N TV text].”

O n 14 March 2000, during a session of the Governm ental Com m ission on the Fight against Political Extrem ism , Deputy Press Minister Mikhail Seslavinsky stated that, in light of the addition of Movladi Udugov to the Federal Most Wanted List, “now the Press Ministry has the opportunity to react rather harshly to his use of the airtim e or print m edia.” Seslavinsky also nam ed Aslan Maskhadov M ED IA SITUATIO N

IN

C HECHNYA

257

and Sham il Basaev am ong those w ho should not be allow ed to have the floor in the m edia.

O n 15 March 2000, the Press Ministry w arned the Russian m edia that offering the leaders of Chechen terrorists the opportunity to speak out w ould be view ed as a violation of the Terrorism Law. O n the sam e day, Seslavinsky com m ented on the Ministry’s decision to lim it inform ation from Chechnya. He denied that the Ministry w as seeking to introduce censorship, explaining that “the Chechen com m anders m ay appear on air and on the new spaper pages w ith any statem ents, or retellings of their interview s, except those that advocate violence.”

O n 27 April 2000, Alexan der Kotyusov, th e h ead of th e VolgoVyatka Territorial D epartm en t of th e Press M in istry, h eld a m eetin g w ith th e actin g ch ief editor of th e N izhegorodsk ie novosti n ew spaper, Nikolai Klesch ev, an d th e ch ief editor of th e N izhegorodsk iy rabochiy n ew spaper, An drei Ch ugun ov, w arn in g th em th at to violate th e Terrorism Law w as in adm issible. Th e reason for th e w arn in g w as an in terview w ith Ruslan Kutaev, Ch airm an of th e Un ion of Political Forces of Ch ech n ya, publish ed by th e tw o n ew spapers in question . In Kotyusov’s view , certain statem en ts by Kutaev fell un der Article 15 of th e Terrorism Law , w h ich proh ibits propagan da on terrorist activities.

O n 31 January 2001, Pavel Kovalenko, a m em ber of the State Dum a Com m ittee on Inform ation Policy and a deputy of the Edinstvo fraction, declared the inadm issibility in the Russian m edia of publications “that are in fact directed to support the Chechen rebels”.

Kovalenko forw arded an enquiry to the Press Ministry, requesting Minister Mikhail Lesin “to im plem ent the necessary m easures to prevent such publications in the Russian m edia in the future.” The reason for this statem ent w ere interview s w ith Maskhadov published by the Kommersant new spaper and Grani.ru, an Internet publication.

O n 2 March 2001, the Press Ministry issued an official w arning to N ezavisimaya gazeta, regarding the fact that the new spaper’s editorial board, “having published an article propagating w ar, advocating forceful change to the Constitutional order and integrity of the State, abused the freedom of the m edia, and thereby violated the regulations set forth in Article 4 of the Russian Mass Media Law.” O n 24 O ctober 2002, during the hostage crisis in Moscow, the Press Ministry issued a w arning to all of the m edia. According to the Ministry’s representative Yuri Akinshin, “to give the terrorists an opportunity to speak out constitutes a violation of the Russian m edia 258

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

law.” He em phasized that the Ekho M oskvy radio station allow ed the m em bers of the arm ed group that held several hundred hostages at the Theatre Centre to m ake a statem ent. Akinshin noted that, if such cases persisted, the Ministry w ould reserve the right to im plem ent rather strict m easures, w hich could go as far as closing the m edia outlets that w ere found guilty of the violations.

6.2. D enial o f Visa Suppo rt to Fo reign Jo urnalists. Starting in 2000, several foreign journalists w ho had previously w orked in Russia and held either perm anent or tem porary accreditations w ere denied visa support from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (in som e cases repeatedly). Practically all of these journalists had w orked in Russia during the First Chechen War, or the beginning of the Second. In all cases, the Russian Consulates did not give any reasons for the denials; how ever, one supposes that the principal reason w as the journalists’ active w ork in covering the conflicts in Chechnya.

Som e of these journalists had already encountered difficulties w hile dealing w ith Russian state institutions. For instance, on 26 O ctober 1999, Petra Prohazkova, a correspondent of the Czech Epicentrum agency, w as sum m oned to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, w here Alexei Ritchenko, a staff m em ber, told her that “follow ing the publication in the Lidove noviny new spaper of an interview w ith Sham il Basaev and Khattab, there w ere problem s w ith her further accreditation w ith the Ministry.” In addition, Ritchenko cited a letter from the Russian Am bassador in Slovakia, w hich described the “anti-Russian sentim ents” allegedly caused by Prohazkova’s reports from Chechnya. In conclusion, Prohazkova w as recom m ended to cooperate w ith the head of one of the press centres w hich had been form ed as part of the Federal Forces in the Northern Caucasus. Prohazkova had lived and w orked in Moscow since 1992.

Prohazkova’s last reports from Chechnya go back to late 1999. In January 2000, she started to w ork in Chechnya and Ingushetia as a hum anitarian w orker and founder of an orphanage for Chechen children (Prohazkova is m arried to a Russian citizen, an ethnic Ingush).

In late February 2000, her visa w as annulled w ithout further explanation. Ingushetia’s passport and visa service issued her another entry visa instead, valid for ten days. O n 3 March, she found her Moscow apartm ent, w hich had been officially registered w ith the Departm ent of the Diplom atic Corps of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, sealed up. Having returned to Prague, she applied to the Russian Consulate for a tourist visa; the application w as denied.

M ED IA SITUATIO N

IN

C HECHNYA

259

Another journalist, Kricztina Satori, a Hungarian, had lived in Russia since 1987, graduated from Moscow State University, and w orked for the Moscow bureaux of the Austrian and Germ an television stations (O RF and ARD). Follow ing a vacation in Hungary, she returned to Moscow on 20 February 2000. At that tim e, citizens of Hungary and Russia could travel betw een the tw o countries w ithout needing visas.

In the Sherem etevo-2 airport, Satori w as detained by Russian border guards, w ho transferred her to a different building, ordering her to “Keep quiet and sit”. After 14 hours of detention, on the m orning of 21 February, a Russian border control officer stated that he did not have to give any explanations, that his duty w as accom plished as he detained “an enem y of the people”, and threatened Satori w ith handcuffing her. She w as denied the right to call the Hungarian Em bassy and invite a consular staff m em ber. In 18 hours, her docum ents w ere returned to her, and she w as put on a plane to Budapest, accom panied by the statem ent, “you w ill never enter this country anyw ay”.

Atis Klim ovics, a correspondent of a leading Latvian new spaper, Diena, had w orked in Russian since 1992. He w as denied accreditation by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1995, w ith his Russian visa denied in 1997. Since then, he travelled to Russia on a tourist visa. His last trip to Chechnya and Ingushetia w as in the autum n of 1999. Having returned to Latvia, he learned of the statem ent by General Alexander Zdanovich, the Head of the Public Relations Centre of the FSB, w ho claim ed that “the Chechen rebels” had planned to kidnap Klim ovics. In 2001, he applied to the Russian Embassy in Riga for a tourist visa, w hich w as issued. How ever, a day later he received a call from the Russian Em bassy, asking him to stop by “to correct an error in the visa”. When Klim ovics received his passport back, the visa w as m issing.

Som e of the other journalists w ho w ere denied visa support include Carlotta Goll (USA), Iva Zim ova (Canada), Andre Gluksm an, Nadja Vankovenberg, Alexander Ginsburg (all from France), Frank Hefling and Ekkehart Maas (both Germ any).

7 . Vio latio n o f Jo urnalis ts ’ and M e dia Rights 7.1. D etention of Jo urnalists. Even after the Russian authorities, both military and civil, had implemented the strict measures on limiting journalists’ w ork in Chechnya, reporters, especially foreign ones, continued their attem pts to visit the Republic. They considered their Ministry of Foreign Affairs accreditations the basis for their continued w ork, in addition to the existing Media Law w hich provided for freedom of activity on all of Russia’s territory except the state of em ergency zones.

260

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

How ever, in violation of the existing legislation, Russian m ilitary personnel detained journalists, m aking all kinds of accusations, especially lack of accreditation to the Press Centre of the Joint Staff in the Northern Caucasus. O n 28 O ctober 1999, for exam ple, the roadblock post of the Federal Forces on the adm inistrative border of Chechnya and Ingushetia detained a m ilitary correspondent for The Times, Anthony Loyd, and the N ew York Times reporter, Tyler Hicks.

The Forces’ representatives justified the detention by the fact that the tw o journalists did not carry such accreditation. The m ilitary claim ed that only this gave a journalist the right to enter Chechnya.

O n 29 Decem ber 1999, Russian m ilitary detained the follow ing journalists in the vicinity of Grozny: Daniel William s (the Washington Post), David Filipov (the Boston Globe), Marcus Warren (the Daily Telegraph), Rodrigo Fernandez (El Pais), Ricardo O rtega and Teim uraz Gabashvili (the Spanish Antenna 3 television station), and an independent British photographer, Michael Yassulovich. The journalists w ere accused of violating the regulations for staying and w orking on the territory of the Russian Federation, since they did not have the perm ission to rem ain in the com bat zone. The journalists w ere delivered by helicopter to Mozdok, and released nine hours later, after the details of the incident w ere recorded.

O n 2 February 2000, Giles Wh itell, th e D irector of th e M oscow Bureau of The Times, w as detain ed in dow n tow n Grozn y. Accordin g to Presiden tial Aide Sergei Yastrzh em bsky, th e journ alist “ran in to a group of Russian m ilitary servicem en h eaded by th e Com m an der of th e North ern Caucasus D istrict, Viktor Kazan tsev”, follow in g w h ich h e w as detain ed an d tran sferred to M ozdok by h elicopter. Th e official reason for Wh itell’s deten tion w as a lack of accreditation from th e Tem porary Press Cen tre of th e Federal Group of th e Russian M ilitary Forces.

O n 4 August 2000, a block post in a Grozny suburb detained a correspondent of the Russian Glasnost-N orthern Caucasus inform ation centre, Kheda Saratova, and a Japanese journalist, Masaaki Hayachi. The journalists w ere escorted to the Pobedinsk District Com m andant’s O ffice. O n 5 August, Saratova w as released and proceeded to Grozny and Guderm es, seeking the release of the Japanese reporter. Several hours later, Hayachi w as released as w ell. Yastrzhem bsky tried to justify the journalists’ detention by citing a lack of special accreditation.

O n 7 Septem ber 2000, the Moscow Bureau of the Associated Press reported that Russian m ilitary had assaulted and robbed the agency’s correspondent in Chechnya, Ruslan Musaev, an ethnic M ED IA SITUATIO N

IN

C HECHNYA

261

Chechen. The journalist w as detained at a Grozny m arket follow ing a docum ents check, and w as escorted to a m ilitary base in Khankala.

According to Musaev, he w as beaten and put in a pit near Khankala airport together w ith other detainees; the follow ing day, a Russian officer took from him a gold w atch and $600, w hich he had kept under his clothes. The Khankala Com m andant, Georgy Serpyan, stated that, “there had been no such incidents.” Yastrzhem bsky’s O ffice also denied the report of the incident w ith the AP correspondent, stating that “recently, no one w as delivered to the base, nor w as anyone assaulted, certainly not a journalist.”

O n 17 Septem ber, at a Joint Staff base in Khankala, three soldiers arm ed w ith m achine guns threw correspondent Vadim Fefilov and cam eram an Alexei Peredelsky of the N TV television station to the ground. They w ere forbidden from continuing film ing. Valery Manilov, First Deputy of the Joint Chief of Staff, said an official investigation of the incident w ith the N TV reporters had been started. In his view, the incident w as provoked by the journalists them selves.

How ever, Yastrzhem bsky considered it necessary to apologize to the N TV view ers for the “unsanctioned actions of one of the m ilitary press centre staff m em bers, w ho attem pted to interfere w ith the live broadcast from Khankala,” and called these actions “inappropriate, to say the least.”

O n 2 March 2001, at a m ilitary base in Khankala, tw o drunken soldiers brutally assaulted a special correspondent of RIA-N ovosti, Alexander Stepanov. The intoxicated soldiers had dem anded perm ission to use his satellite telephone, “for private purposes”. Their request denied, they assaulted the journalist.

According to the m onitoring of violations of journalists’ rights in Chechnya, the actions of the m ilitary personnel can be divided into tw o categories: foreign journalists w ere subjected to m oral pressure, as they w ere threatened w ith accreditation and visa annulm ent; m eanw hile, Russian journalists w ere subjected to physical violence.

7.2. The Sto ry o f Andrei Babitsky. Andrei Babitsky, a correspondent for Radio Liberty, w as detained by Russian servicem en. O n 27 January 2000, the station declared that Babitsky had not been in contact since 15 January, his w hereabouts w ere unknow n. O n the sam e day, Presidential Aide Yastrzhem bsky said he also knew nothing of the journalist’s w hereabouts. O nly the follow ing day – after the head of the m onitoring service of the Glasnost Defence Foundation, O leg Panfilov, reported that Babitsky had been detained, citing Chechen 262

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

sources – an anonym ous source of the Russian special services confirm ed to the Interfax agency that Babitsky had indeed been arrested.

Interfax reported that “the Prosecutor’s O ffice of the Chechen Republic (had) issued an arrest w arrant for the correspondent of Radio Liberty. He is charged according to Article 208, Part 2 of the Crim inal Code of the Russian Federation (‘participation in an unlaw fully arm ed unit’).” Later, it becam e know n that Babitsky w as being held at an isolation w ard in Chechnya, and, according to the Russian Prosecutor, Vladim ir Ustinov, w ould be released in ten days.

O n 2 February, it w as announced that Babitsky had signed a notice not to leave the area; how ever, the radio station’s m anagem ent w as still unaw are of his w hereabouts. O n 3 February, Yastrzhem bsky stated that Babitsky had been exchanged for three Russian servicem en, allegedly w ith his ow n consent; how ever, the crim inal proceedings against him w ould not be dropped. Babitsky’s law yer, Henry Reznik, told Interfax that “these actions constitute savagery. This is som e Jesuitical m ove on the part of the authorities. In m y practice, I have never encountered anything like this.” All the leaders of the Chechen resistance m ovem ent denied their involvem ent in the exchange.

Follow ing m ultiple protests from international organizations, including the O SCE and the European Union, as w ell as the governm ents of m any Western countries, the Russian authorities launched an inform ation cam paign to discredit Babitsky. O n 7 February, the Interfax agency reported that “the m anagem ent of the m ilitary authorities, such as the Defence Ministry, Joint Staff, Ministry of Internal Affairs, the FSB, and others, regard the reports of Radio Liberty correspondent Andrei Babitsky concerning the counter-terrorism operation in Chechnya as biased and one-sided.” O n 9 February, one of the soldiers allegedly exchanged for Babitsky, Nikolai Zavarzin, told Interfax that he in fact had been exchanged for “som e Chechen”, w hose face he could not see. The soldier stated that he had not been exchanged for Radio Liberty correspondent Babitsky, or at least this is w hat he had been told by the FSB people w ho w ere credited w ith his release.

O n 6 March, Justice Minister Yuri Chaika said in an interview w ith the Figaro new spaper, com pletely ignoring Article 49 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation (“everyone charged w ith a crim e is to be considered innocent until proven guilty in accordance w ith the regulations set forth in the Federal law and a legally binding decision of a court”), that “his [Babitsky’s] inform ation cannot be trusted, for he is a crim inal him self; not only did he forge his passport, but he also collaborated w ith the rebels.”

M ED IA SITUATIO N

IN

C HECHNYA

263

Anxiety over the Russian authorities em ploying strict m easures w ith Babitsky had existed since 27 Decem ber 1999, w hen the N TV television station aired a recording of a crushing defeat of a Russian arm oured vehicle unit, after an unsuccessful attem pt to control Grozny. O fficial Russian functionaries, civil and m ilitary alike, denied the journalists’ reports of m ultiple losses am ong the m ilitary personnel. O n 27 Decem ber 1999, the RIC issued a statem ent of harsh criticism of Babitsky’s reports from Chechnya, calling the footage a “fraud”. The statem ent claim ed that “everything film ed appears to be a dram atization, orchestrated under the protection of the ideologist of the Chechen guerrillas and slave traders, Udugov.”

O n 25 February 2000, Andrei Babitsky w as detained in the city of Makhachkala, the capital of the southern republic of Dagestan. He w as charged w ith carrying a fake passport. How ever, on 29 February, Babitsky’s preventive punishm ent w as unexpectedly changed. He w as released and transferred to Moscow on the private airplane of the Minister of Internal Affairs, Vladim ir Rushailo.

From 2 to 6 O ctober 2000, a Makhachkala court sentenced Andrei Babitsky to a financial penalty and am nestied him . His law yers subm itted an appeal, w hich w as overruled by the next legal authority, the Suprem e Court of Dagestan. Henry Reznik stated that he considered his client not guilty, and intended to seek his full acquittal. Babitsky him self stated that the charges of using a fake passport w ere “inspired by the Russian special services.”

7.3. The Sto ry o f Anna Po litko vskaya. Anna Politkovskaya, a correspondent of the Moscow N ovaya gazeta, started her active w ork in Chechnya at the beginning of the Second War in 1999. N ovaya gazeta w as the only Moscow periodical to m ake the conscious decision to inform readers of the other side of the w ar, i.e. of the problem s of refugees and the life of the civilian population w hich suffered from the m ilitary confrontation. Practically every issue of the new spaper, published tw ice a w eek on Mondays and Thursdays, included stories

by Politkovskaya, resonating w idely both w ith the Russian public and the authorities, especially the m ilitary.

In 2001, Politkovskaya w rote an article about the death of a Chechnya resident, w ho w as being persuaded by the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs to collaborate as a secret agent. When the Chechen refused to collaborate, he w as allegedly m urdered. Politkovskaya conducted an investigation and published an article w hich identified a police officer, Lapin, w ho w as connected w ith the m urder. Som e tim e 264

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

later, an e-m ail arrived in the editorial offices of N ovaya gazeta. It w as signed “Cadet”, and contained m urder threats against Politkovskaya.

In 2002, crim inal proceedings w ere instigated against officer Lapin; how ever, as w itnessed by Politkovskaya’s law yer, Stanislav Markelov, the authorities have deliberately been delaying the investigation and transfer of the case to a court.

O n 20 February 2002, Colonel Shabalkin, a representative of the Press Service of the Russian Forces in Chechnya, produced a statem ent from a regional Executive Headquarters for the Counter-Terrorist O peration, w hich claim ed that N ovaya gazeta and its reporter, Anna Politkovskaya, w ere using the latter’s trips to Chechnya “to solve their financial problem s and disagreem ents w ith certain foundations.” According to Shabalkin, Politkovskaya travelled to Chechnya to instigate scandals and force the Soros Foundation to w rite off $55,000, a grant allegedly given by the Foundation to the new spaper for the “Hot Spots” project. Shabalkin claim ed that the new spaper could not account for the first part of the grant ($14,000) w hich it received, and thus intended to create a stir around Politkovskaya and distract the Foundation from this fact. N ovaya gazeta responded by stating it w ould sue Shabalkin.

O n the sam e day, 20 February 2002, Politkovskaya w as detained in the Vedensk District of Chechnya by Russian m ilitary personnel.

According to Konstantin Kukharenko, the head of the Press Service of the Joint Staff in the Northern Caucasus, Politkovskaya w as detained due to a lack of accreditation, as she had been travelling in Chechnya w ithout proper perm ission, and had arrived in the Republic illegally. Kukharenko em phasized that Politkovskaya had been detained in the village of Khatuni. The journalist, in her ow n w ords, travelled to Chechnya to confirm a report that residents of Makhketa had collectively appealed to the authorities to be transferred, en m asse, to the territory of Russia.

O n 21 February, Ivan Babichev, the Head Military Com m ander of Chechnya, stated that the Com m andant’s O ffice had nothing to do w ith Politkovskaya’s detention, and that she w ould be released in the near future. According to Babichev, “the journalist lacked the necessary docum ents, w hile the car she w as using had the licence plates of a different region.” The Russian Union of Journalists appealed to Gennady Troshev, the Com m ander of the entire Northern Caucasus Military District, w ith a request to clarify precisely w hich regulations had been violated by Politkovskaya, and w hether im peding the journalist’s professional activity constituted an adequate reaction to the correspondent’s request for help.

M ED IA SITUATIO N

IN

C HECHNYA

265

The union rem inded Troshev that Politkovskaya had been accredited

by Yastrzhem bsky’s O ffice, w hile the “registration” w ith the Press Centre of the Joint Staff lacking in her docum ents w as not required by the said O ffice. Yastrzhem bsky’s O ffice reported that Politkovskaya w as being held at an airborne unit, treated w ell, and fed. At that, the O ffice considered the m atter concluded. Vyacheslav Izm ailov, a fellow reporter for N ovaya gazeta, stated that the editorial board w as w ary of severing their relations w ith the authorities until Politkovskaya w as located. The Russian PEN Centre dem anded the journalist’s im m ediate release, calling her arrest “a flagrant violation of a journalist’s rights during the execution of her professional duties, against the regulations of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the m edia legislation.”

7.4. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. The Am erican Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty station has served as one of the active inform ation sources on the events in Chechnya. The Russian service of the station has produced a perm anent program m e, entitled The Caucasian Chronicles, authored by Andrei Babitsky, O leg Kusov, and the correspondents of the station’s Northern Caucasus Bureau.

The confrontation betw een the Russian authorities and the station began in 1999, w hile the beginning of the “w ar” against Radio Liberty w as signified by the RIC statem ent of criticism of Babitsky’s reports from Chechnya. O n 2 March 2000, the state ITAR-TASS agency issued a statem ent entitled “For all purposes, Radio Liberty supports the Chechen rebels”.

O n 15 May 2000, Deputy Press Minister Andrei Rom anchenko expressed his discontent w ith the activities of Radio Liberty, and called for a change in m edia legislation that w ould allow for the annulm ent of Western m edia outlets’ licences in certain situations.

According to Rom anchenko, Radio Liberty w as engaged in hostile activity vis-à-vis Russia, m anifested by the station’s coverage on the events in Chechnya.

The Russian authorities reacted strongly to a report on 7 February 2001 of the US Congress sanctioning Radio Liberty to start broadcasting in the three languages of the Northern Caucasus: Chechen, Avar and Cherkessian. The Congressional Appropriations Com m ittee stated that the goal of such radio broadcasting w as to cover “the im portan t an d isolated m in orities of th e North ern Caucasus”, w h ich in th e con text of th e Ch ech en crisis required “objective an d un cen sored in form ation ”.

266

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

O n 8 February 2001, Russian Minister of Culture, Mikhail Shvydkoi, expressed his doubt that Radio Liberty’s decision to broadcast in Chechen, Avar and Cherkessian w ould be a stabilizing factor for the Northern Caucasus. In his w ords, any inform ation stream s on the territory of the Russian Federation m ust be regulated by law. Press Minister Mikhail Lesin stated that Radio Liberty’s decision w as a “serious m istake of the editorial board”. He called it “an act m ost discourteous to the country w here the broadcasts are being conducted”. Lesin prom ised that “w e w ill m onitor the situation and the program m ing policy, to ensure full adherence to the legislation,” and, in the event of violations, “adequate m easures w ill be im plem ented.”

O n 13 March 2001, the Russian Press Ministry forw arded a letter to the Director of the Moscow Bureau of Radio Liberty, Savik Shuster, w hich dem anded that it provide, w ithin three days, a full recording of all the station’s program m es broadcast betw een 15 February and 15 March 2000, as w ell as the registration journal containing the program m es that w ere broadcast w ithin the sam e tim e period.

O n 18 April 2001, Alexander Zdanovich, the Head of the Departm ent of Assistance Program m es of the FSB, expressed his concern over “the increase of the inform ation ideological w arfare against Russia”. According to Zdanovich, the FSB w as “in possession of m aterials testifying to a direct or indirect link w ith certain Russian journalists, w ho due to their thoughtlessness or m alicious intent, also participate in this ideological w arfare.” Zdanovich expressed his indignation at the fact that Radio Liberty w as intending to broadcast in Chechnya.

O n 9 August 2001, the RIA-Novosti agency cited representatives of one of the Russian secret services in reporting that the Minister of Inform ation and Press of the form er regim e of Ichkeria, Movladi Udugov, w as attem pting to establish a direct link w ith the editorial board of Radio Liberty. According to the agency’s sources, Udugov intended to use the radio station to distribute m aterials of anti-Russian nature.

O n 18 January 2002, Presidential Aide Yastrzhem bsky said that Moscow ’s view of Radio Liberty’s poten tial broadcasts in th e Chechen, Avar, Cherkessian and Russian languages in the Northern Caucasus w ould depend on the content of the program m es. He noted that he personally considered the station’s attitude tow ard covering the events in Chechnya partial and biased, w hile “crow ning this attitude w ere the reports of Andrei Babitsky, full of hatred tow ard Russian servicem en”. Yastrzhem bsky confirm ed, “w e w ill m onitor the station’s w ork very carefully, keeping in m ind that this is a US state m edia outlet, financed by the Congress.”

M ED IA SITUATIO N

IN

C HECHNYA

267

O n 28 January 2002, Yastrzhem bsky rem inded everyone that the station retained its Press Ministry licence for broadcasting in Russia, but did not exclude the possibility that “in the event of violating the law, m easures provided for by the legislation m ay be im plem ented against the station’s bureau.”

“The first such m easure is a w arning. After a second violation, the station’s licence for broadcasting in Russia w ill be annulled, and the bureau closed,” he added.

O n 2 April 2002, the Russian Foreign Ministry delivered a m em orandum to the US Em bassy in Moscow, expressing its “concern over the intention of Radio Liberty to com m ence broadcasting in the Northern Caucasus. Initiating specific propagandist broadcasting in the region, including Chechnya, w here active m easures are taken to confront extrem ism and religious fanaticism w ithin the context of an anti-terrorist operation, m ay com plicate the efforts of the Federal Forces to stabilize the situation in the region.”

O n 2 April 2002, Akhm ar Zavgaev, Chechnya’s Representative in the Federation Council, declared his apprehension that “Radio Liberty broadcasts m ay stir up extrem ism in the Republic”. O n the sam e day, Stanislav Ilyasov, Head of Chechnya’s Governm ent, com m ented on the com m encem ent of Radio Liberty’s broadcasts: “We are not opposed to another radio station broadcasting in Chechnya; how ever, if the station presents biased inform ation regarding the events in Chechnya, w e w ill silence it.”

O n 4 April 2002, Yastrzhem bsky presented an evaluation of the first Radio Liberty broadcasts, stating that “an analysis of these broadcasts in the Northern Caucasian languages dem onstrates their onesidedness and narrow ness. It seem s that the pessim istic forecasts regarding the direction of broadcasts of the Northern Caucasus service of this station are com ing true. It w ould be logical to expect that Radio Liberty w ould point its listeners’ attention to the content of an im m ensely im portant order given by the Joint Chief of Staff, Vladim ir Moltensky, w hich w as quite an event in the public life of the Republic, causing w ide resonance. How ever, the station presented only a one-sided view of the issue. The issue, that of the m ilitary personnel actions, w as show n narrow ly, through the prism of the position of the infam ous Anna Politkovskaya, a N ovaya gazeta reporter. We continue to m onitor the program m es of the Northern Caucasus service of Radio Liberty,” said Yastrzhem bsky, thus hinting that Moscow considered the station’s first experim ent to be unsuccessful.

268

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

O n 18 April 2002, the International Com m ittee of the State Dum a stated that it considered Radio Liberty’s broadcasts in the Chechen language “a flagrant intervention in Russia’s internal affairs”. The Com m ittee developed a draft of a parliam entary inquiry to the Russian head of governm ent, entitled “O n the Broadcasts of Radio Liberty in the Chechen Language in the Northern Caucasus”. O n 24 April, the Dum a deputies planned to address Mikhail Kasyanov w ith a request to provide inform ation regarding the legal norm s and international agreem ents that served as a basis for Radio Liberty’s licence to use airw aves in Russia. The deputies also signalled their intention to request inform ation from the Russian Prem ier on w hether a parity agreem ent existed betw een the Russian and Am erican sides concerning the broadcasting of the Russian state radio stations in English and Spanish on the territory of the United States.

O n 29 May 2002, the Press Ministry declared its readiness to im plem ent m easures against Radio Liberty in connection w ith its broadcasts in Chechnya. In his address to the Federation Council, Press Minister Lesin said that his Ministry w as closely m onitoring the activity of the station, w hich had been conducting its Chechen language program m ing for a m onth. In his opinion, one could already speak of interference in Russia’s internal affairs on the territory of Chechnya. In this regard, Lesin em phasized that the Ministry intended to undertake certain action for such interference to be stopped.

O n 4 O ctober 2002, Vladim ir Putin resolved to acknow ledge as invalid the Russian Presidential Decree 93 of 27 August 1991 “O n the Bureau of the Independent Radio Station Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty”. In accordance w ith this Decree signed by the then President Yeltsin, the editorial board of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty w as allow ed to open a perm anent bureau in Moscow, w ith correspondent bureaus on the territory of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR). The Russian Foreign Ministry w as to officially accredit correspondents of the station, and provide them w ith the unim peded opportunity to conduct their journalistic activities in Russia. The Mayor of Moscow w as to designate a building for the station’s bureau in the Russian capital, w hile the m inistries of Press and Mass Inform ation of the RSFSR, as w ell as the Ministry of Com m unications, Inform ation Science, and Space, w ere to provide the bureau w ith the necessary com m unication channels.

The m anagem ent of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty believes that the Russian President’s Decree regarding the station’s Moscow Bureau “w ill not be reflected in the status of the representation and journalists’ w ork”.

M ED IA SITUATIO N

IN

C HECHNYA

269

8 . Public O pinio n In Russia there are several sociological services that periodically conduct polls to determ ine public opinion regarding various aspects of politics and public life. Several m edia outlets have conducted com parable experim ents as w ell. O ne m ay not contend that the results of these polls are absolutely accurate about the population’s attitudes; nevertheless, the sociological data m ay testify, to one degree or another, to the reality of the situation, including that regarding the journalists’ w ork in Chechnya or the quality of coverage of the situation in that republic.

O n 19 O ctober 1999, the Ekho M oskvy radio station conducted a poll am ong its listeners regarding the Russian journalists’ w ork in Chechnya. 52 per cent w ere against such w ork; 48 per cent supported it. 979 respondents participated in the poll.

O n 24 January 2000, the sam e station conducted a survey am ong its listeners regarding the lim its placed by the m ilitary on the inform ation provided to the N TV film ing crew follow ing the story on the Federal losses in Chechnya. 68 per cent of those surveyed considered the actions of the m ilitary w rong. 32 per cent considered them right.

2,988 people participated in the survey.

O n 3 February 2000, the sociological service of the Russian Centre for Public O pinion Studies published the results of a poll of 16,000 people in 83 different Russian localities. In answ er to the question regarding the m edia coverage of the situation in Chechnya, 40 per cent of those polled said that the coverage w as biased; 38 per cent stated that the coverage w as insufficient and superficial; 14 per cent said the m edia w ork w as objective; 85 people had difficulties in answ ering the question.

O n 16 February 2000, Ekho M oskvy published the results of the poll conducted by the sociological service of the Centre for Public O pinion Studies regarding the population’s confidence in the m edia.

39 per cent expressed their confidence in the state television stations, O RT and RTR. 32 per cent put their faith in the N TV and TVS stations; 26 per cent trusted the statem ents of Vladim ir Putin. 1,600 citizens of Russia in 83 localities participated in this poll.

O n 21 February 2000, the O reanda agency published the data provided by the Public O pinion Foundation, regarding the objectivity of Russian television stations in covering the events in Chechnya. 11 per cent of the respondents stated that none of the central stations covered the situation objectively, w hile 5 per cent considered all sta270

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

tions to be objective. From those w ho had the opportunity to view all of the central stations (O RT, RTR, and N TV), 47 per cent called N TV the m ost objective, w ith the state O RT collecting 29 per cent and RTR collecting 17 per cent.

O n 22 June 2000, the Agency for Regional Political Studies published the results of a poll conducted am ong 1,600 people in 49 Russian localities. 67 per cent of those polled believed that the num ber of losses in Chechnya reported by the official sources w ere understated.

13 per cent believed the inform ation reported corresponded to reality; 20 per cent had difficulties answ ering the question. According to the sam e poll, 48 per cent believed that the m ilitary action m ust be continued; 29 per cent spoke out in favour of negotiations; 20 per cent had difficulties answ ering the question.

O n 3 August 2000, Ekho M oskvy conducted an interactive poll of 1,591 listeners. 88 per cent of those polled stated that they did not believe the official reports on the losses of Russian m ilitary personnel.

9 . Le gal Co m m e ntary Co nditio ns o f Access to Info rmatio n in the Chechen Republic: A Legal Analysis Bo ris Panteleyev Legal Expert, Centre for Journalism in Extrem e Situations Special to Prague Watchdog The true state of affairs, w ith regard to journalists’ rights and the possibility of applying the standards of freedom of speech in practice, becom es m ost apparent in extrem e situations. Without a doubt, the m edia situation in the Chechen Republic from 1994 until the present can be described as extrem e.

O ur analysis show s that the generally accepted international norm s and national legislation have had virtually no effect w ithin Chechnya’s territory, being ignored by the official authorities them selves. It is a paradox that the m ilitary cam paign in Chechnya had form ally com m enced under the platform of restoring the constitutional order in the Republic. How ever, this very “constitutional order” is perceived extrem ely selectively, and the generally accepted standards of freedom of speech, for one reason or another, find them selves outside of the protection of the Federal authorities.

Furtherm ore, m onitoring show s an ever increasing num ber of violations – in the nam e of protecting a rather abstract constitutional order – of very specific constitutionally protected rights of both the M ED IA SITUATIO N

IN

C HECHNYA

271

inhabitants of the Chechen Republic and all citizens of the Russian Federation w ho w ish to receive objective inform ation regarding events in Chechnya.

Media access and distribution violations in Chechnya are of a fundam ental rather than a sporadic nature.

For instance, the current Mass Media Law of the Russian Federation contains, in the first Article, a critical provision w hich bans restrictions on journalists’ rights and m ass m edia at large by any law s that are not m edia-related. How ever, this provision of the Media Law has been continuously violated. The m ost typical of the violations concern the conditions of inform ation access in the Chechen Republic since the beginning of m ilitary operations there.

A com m only know n provision of Article 48 of the Russian Mass Media Law identifies the essence of accreditation (once it is granted to a journalist) in the follow ing w ay: “the accrediting institutions shall notify the journalists in advance of the scheduled m eetings, conferences, and other events; provide the journalists w ith the recorded m inutes, agendas, and other pertinent docum ents; and create favourable conditions for the recording of the events.” By act of this Law, accreditation is used to regulate the w ork of journalists w ithin any official or public institution, establishm ent, organization, or enterprise. Moreover, in Russia there exists the Foreign Journalists Accreditation Institute, affiliated w ith the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

How ever, both the essence and letter of the Russian Mass Media Law have been openly and seriously violated w ith respect to journalists’ affairs in the Chechen Republic. For instance, in January 1995, there w as an attem pt to introduce, on behalf of the Governm ent, a num ber of additional obligations for journalists accredited in Chechnya, in accordance w ith Article 29, Item 3 of the Russian Interior Forces Law. New departm ental acts continue to em erge, w hich attem pt to apply their characteristic logic and m ilitary policy to m ass m edia.

In confirm ing the validity of this conclusion, it is crucial to view the Resolution of the Russian Constitutional Court of 31 July 1995. This concerned an investigation into the constitutionality of Presidential Decree No. 2137, “O n Measures for Restoring Constitutional Law and O rder on the Territory of the Chechen Republic” of 30 Novem ber 1994, and a num ber of other acts. The investigation considered, am ong others, Resolution No. 1360 of the Russian Governm ent, “O n Ensuring State Security and Territorial Integrity of the Russian Federation, and Law, Civil Rights and Liberties, Disarm am ent of Unlaw ful Arm ed Units on the Territory of the Chechen Republic and the Adjacent Regions of the Northern Caucasus”, of 9 Decem ber 1994.

272

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

This official docum ent contained a special provision (Item 6, Paragraph 2) w hich prescribed the Provisional Inform ation Centre, affiliated w ith the Russian State Press Com m ittee, to instantly revoke the accreditation of journalists w ho w orked in the arm ed conflict zone and reported false inform ation or propagated national or religious intolerance.

In its Resolution, the Constitutional Court noted that the Mass Media Law (in Article 48, Part 5) provided an exhaustive list of grounds for revoking a journalist’s accreditation. Therefore, the aforem entioned provision, by virtue of introducing new, legally unstipulated grounds and procedures for revoking an accreditation, w as “in violation of Article 29 (Parts 4 and 5), w hich sets forth one’s right for freedom of inform ation; Article 46, w hich guarantees legal protection for rights and liberties; as w ell as Article 55 (Part 3) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.”

Thus, the anti-constitutional nature of the acts that explicitly violated the rights of journalists in Chechnya w as legally recognized as early as 1995, by the highest judicial authority in Russia. How ever, this Resolution of the Constitutional Court has not only failed to becom e a guiding docum ent, but has been effectively ignored. As they continue to be established, official inform ation centres persist in view ing accreditation as a m eans of suppressing the activities of independent journalists in Chechnya.

Another legal issue w hich substantially com plicates the w ork of journalists in Chechnya is the so-called “term inology confusion”, one w ith far-reaching consequences. Ever since the beginning of the arm ed conflict years ago, the authorities have had trouble determ ining the official designation for w hat has been happening in Chechnya: is it a w ar, independently occurring skirm ishes, a counter-terrorist operation, a police action, a border conflict, or scuffles am ong crim inal organizations?

A clear and unam biguous answ er to that question w ould govern the authorities’ right to legally establish lim itations on freedom of speech and other constitutional civil liberties on the territory of a w hole Russian Federal entity.

From the standpoint of international hum anitarian law, this issue has a rather sim ple solution: either there is an officially declared w ar, or there is not. A country’s direct use of its regular arm ed forces internally is intolerable in a civilized w orld. According to Article 87 of the Russian Constitution, the state of w ar and rule of m artial law on the country’s territory (or its individual entities) m ay only be M ED IA SITUATIO N

IN

C HECHNYA

273

declared by the President, w ho is to follow a special procedure. As w ith a declaration of a state of em ergency, and pursuant to Article 56 of the Constitution, this is alw ays done publicly, w ith im m ediate notification of the representative governm ental authorities. In the event that a w ar is declared, international norm s allow for an official abeyance of certain constitutional rights and liberties of the people, w hether on the entire territory of the country in question, or in parts of it. For exam ple, freedom of m ovem ent w ithin the country m ay be restricted, or lim its m ay be placed on the freedom of gathering and dissem inating inform ation on m ilitary-related topics.

As w e know from the tw o Chechen m ilitary cam paigns, this consistent legal approach has not been follow ed. Instead, m ilitary action is either not recognized officially, or is described am biguously and w orded indirectly. How ever, the restrictions on civil rights and liberties are introduced de facto, on the arbitrary level of verbal orders from individual m ilitary com m anders controlling specific territories, w ithout an official declaration of w ar, but under the pretence of m ilitary action, special operations, and so forth.

Here, w e can speak of the trium ph of double standards, as, on the one hand, the fact of conducting m ilitary action has not been officially recognized, w hile on the other, the constitutional guarantees of individual rights, such as the ones concerning the right to gather and dissem inate inform ation, set forth in Article 29 of the Russian Constitution, are no longer effective. Meanw hile, all m ilitary authorities, including the forces of the Interior Ministry as w ell as law enforcem ent agencies, are still form ally bound by the Constitution, Crim inal, and Procedural Codes of the Russian Federation, even in tim es of “counter-terrorist operations”.

Another freedom of speech-related violation of the current legislation concerns the unreasonably broad interpretation of the term “counter-terrorist operation”, as w ell as the scope of it.

According to the general rule, the degree of local lim itation of m ilitary action, pursuant to Article 3 of the Russian Anti-Terrorism Law, m ay not be interpreted arbitrarily. Here, m ilitary discretion is once again lim ited by the current legislation. For exam ple, in the legislative sense, the term “counter-terrorist operation” can only exist w ith respect to “individual localities or defined areas of w ater, transport vehicles, buildings, constructions, installations, and facilities, as w ell as the adjacent territories or defined areas of w ater, w ithin the borders of w hich the operation in question is conducted.” In any event, it is legally incorrect to extend the effect of such an operation to the entire territory of a Russian Federal entity, such as Chechnya.

274

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

In practice, how ever, the m ilitary authorities are attem pting, quite unreasonably, to expand the area of their exclusive com petence, thereby m aking as m uch as possible of Chechnya’s territory off-lim its to journalists. That is often done citing the actual lim itations placed on the freedom of m ovem ent by the Anti-Terrorism Law. Article 8 of the Law reads, “the civil right to freedom of m ovem ent and choice of a place of residence w ithin the Russian Federation m ay be restricted at the frontier, w ithin closed m ilitary stations, closed adm inistrative and territorial units, areas of environm ental disaster, in individual areas and m unicipalities affected by a threat of infectious and m ass non-infectious diseases, or poisoning, and thus considered under special conditions for econom ic activities and special regim e for the population, as w ell as w ithin the areas in w hich a state of em ergency or m artial law has been declared.”

Meanw hile, the term s “border zone” and “frontier” are interpreted rather arbitrarily w ith respect to journalists. By act of law, a frontier is the area directly adjacent to the border. O f this area, five kilom etres into the state’s territory are considered a border zone, w hile another 20 kilom etres constitute a zone of border regim e.

Since a part of Chechnya is located w ell over the prescribed 25 kilom etres from , say, the Russian-Georgian border, any statem ents from m ilitary officials concerning a special status of the territory in question do not stand up to legal criticism .

Likew ise ineffective w ith respect to the situation in Chechnya is a legal argum ent w hich references Article 47, Part 1, Subparagraph 7 of the Russian Mass Media Law of 1992, w hich states that “a journalist has the right to visit the specially protected areas of natural disasters, accidents and catastrophes, m ass disturbances and gatherings, as w ell as areas in w hich a state of em ergency has been declared, and to attend m ass-m eetings and dem onstrations.”

The current Rules of Accreditation for Mass Media Representatives, adm inistered by the O ffice of Presidential Aide Yastrzhem bsky, are functioning in violation of the Russia Mass Media Law, as they regulate prim arily the conditions of inform ation-gathering on the territory of the Russian Federal entities, as opposed to controlling the legal procedure of accreditation w ith a state agency. Meanw hile, the conditions for journalists’ activities set forth in these Rules (a subordinate departm ental act) are substantially im paired in com parison to the conditions guaranteed by the federal legislation.

Based on the generally accepted provisions of Article 48 of the Mass Media Law, the subject of any journalist’s activity is the inform ation concerning the m eetings, conferences, and other events held M ED IA SITUATIO N

IN

C HECHNYA

275

by the specific organization w hich has provided accreditation to the journalist. That is to say, the subject of journalistic activity m ay not include all of the inform ation on everything that is taking place w ithin any given Federal entity.

Nevertheless, this particular norm also turns out to be ineffective w ith respect to th e Ch ech en Republic. Represen tatives of m ilitary and adm inistrative authorities have repeatedly undertaken m easures to discontinue the inform ation-gathering activities in Chechnya of those journalists w ho did not carry an accreditation issued according to the Rules.

Furtherm ore, Item 13 of the Rules prohibits even the accredited journalists from independently travelling in the Chechen Republic and conducting interview s w ith m ilitary personnel w ithout prior perm ission from the official Press Centres and m ilitary authorities.

These actions are in direct violation of the m ost fundam ental rights of journalists, guaranteed by Article 27, Part 1; Article 29, Parts 4 and 5; Article 55, Part 3; and Article 56, Part 1 of Russia’s Constitution, as w ell as Articles 1, 38, 47, and 48 of the Russian Mass Media Law. In accordance w ith Article 55, Part 3 of the Constitution, hum an and civil rights and liberties m ay only be restricted by a federal law.

Based on this statem ent, restrictions im posed by issuing subordinate or local norm ative acts are strictly forbidden.

It is w ell know n that Yastrzhem bsky does not serve as the head of the counter-terrorist operation staff. Consequently, he has no legal right to regulate the activities of m ass m edia representatives on the operation’s territory, not even pursuant to the Anti-Terrorism Law. The Rules of Accreditation also contain other provisions w hich further lim it the legally guaranteed rights of journalists.

Thus, in accordance w ith Article 2, Item 10 of the Mass Media Law, “a journalist is a person engaged in editing, creating, collecting, or preparing reports and m aterials for the editorial office of a properly registered m ass m edia outlet; this person is bound to the m ass m edia outlet by labour or other contractual relations, or else is authorized by the m ass m edia outlet to engage in such activity.” How ever, Item 5 of the Rules contradicts this norm by stating that any freelance m edia staff (that is, staff authorized by a m ass m edia outlet to be engaged in inform ation processing w ithout any contractual obligation) “m ay not be accredited by the O ffice of the [Presidential] Aide”.

The requirem ent, under Item 6 of the Rules, to produce, as part of an accreditation application, a copy of the journalist’s insurance policy once again confirm s that the Rules regulate prim arily the conditions of inform ation-gathering on the territory of a Russian Federal 276

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

entity, as opposed to controlling the legal essence of the accreditation regim e. O therw ise, the insurance policy requirem ent w ould have m ade no sense, as it is clearly unnecessary for accrediting a journalist w ith a state agency.

The Rules grant to journalists accredited w ith the Presidential Aide’s O ffice a “special” right to participate in the coverage of m ilitary action; how ever, the right is granted only to those w ho have been included, beforehand, in a certain group form ed by the O ffice of the Aide and approved by the Russian m ilitary authorities. O ne can conclude that, w ithout a form al accreditation, or w ith one but w ithout m em bership in the officially form ed group, any kind of professional journalistic activity in the Chechen Republic is forbidden. For any official departm ent to establish such local norm s is clearly against the law.

Item 14 of the Rules stipulates that a m edia representative m ay also be stripped of the accreditation for dissem ination of inform ation defam ing the honour and dignity of Russian m ilitary personnel, as w ell as contradicting the actual events of the counter-terrorist operation in the Northern Caucasus, upon confirm ation by a court of law.

This particular provision contradicts Article 48, Part 5 of the Mass Media Law, as w ell as Article 9, Part 1 of the Russian Civil Code (“Citizens and legal entities shall exercise their civil rights at their ow n discretion”). The honour and dignity of Russian m ilitary personnel constitute private, intangible rights, w hich belong directly to the m ilitary personnel, not to the O ffice of Sergei Yastrzhem bsky. To establish such a provision is to significantly extend the legal grounds for journalists’ accountability from the ones set forth by the legislation; that, in turn, violates Article 55, Part 3 of the Russian Constitution.

With this m ind, one m ay conclude that the Rules of Accreditation for Mass Media Representatives, introduced in 1999 for journalists w orking in Chechnya, and adm inistered by Yastrzhem bsky’s O ffice, are, in fact, a piece of local legislation w hich contradicts the Constitution and clearly aim s at restricting the rights of m ass m edia staff.

In deed, if th e journ alists accredited un der th ese Rules are h en ceforth “proh ibited from in depen den t travel in th e Ch ech en Republic an d con ductin g in terview s w ith m ilitary person n el” (Item 13), th en this “policy of favouritism ” can only be labelled as a violation of Federal Law . Th e aforem en tion ed Rules, approved by Resolution No. 1538-R of the Governm ent of the Russian Federation on 1 O ctober 1999, contain provisions that once again directly violate the resolution of the Russian Constitutional Court of 31 July 1995, w hich had concluded that revocation or denial of accreditation based on earlier M ED IA SITUATIO N

IN

C HECHNYA

277

publications (Item 14) violate the rights of journalists and im pede their professional activities.

According to Article 48 of the Russian Mass Media Law, a journalist m ay be stripped of his/her accreditation only in tw o cases: if he/she violates the rules of the accreditation (w hich, how ever, m ay not include any provisions restricting the freedom of m ass inform ation or journalists’ rights, pursuant to Article 1 and 5 of the sam e Law ), or if he/she dissem inates inform ation contradicting the actual facts or defam ing the honour and dignity of the staff of the accrediting organization, upon confirm ation by a court of law.

Therefore, the provision of the Rules w hich allow s for stripping a journalist of his/her accreditation in the event that he/she refuses to offer an apology for dissem inating defam ing inform ation is unlaw ful.

No other case, except as stated in the Mass Media Law, including any “refusal to offer an apology,” m ay serve as legal grounds for an accreditation revocation. According to Article 29, Part 3 of the Russian Constitution, no one m ay be forced to express his/her opinions and convictions or renounce them . The “apology requirem ent” is thus m ost certainly unlaw ful.

From a legal standpoint, this issue does not present a com plicated m atter. How ever, despite a ruling by the Russian Constitutional Court, unlaw ful restrictions on journalists continue to persist.

It is disturbing that, in spite of the num erous violations of journalists’ rights, the m echanism for legal protection of freedom of inform ation access (set forth in Articles 140 and 144 of the Crim inal Code of the Russian Federation) still fails to function. O fficial investigations into the conduct of m ilitary personnel obstructing the w ork of journalists in Chechnya do not result in holding the guilty parties liable.

The aforem entioned Articles could be applied to m any of the registered cases of inform ation refusal and obstruction of the journalists’ law ful professional activities. How ever, there are no real exam ples, either civilian or m ilitary, of applying these legal norm s in Chechnya.

Thus, the conditions in w hich freedom of speech exists in Chechnya continue to rem ain outside the legal fram ew ork set up by international and dom estic legislation.

278

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

Jo int D eclaratio n by O SCE, UN and O AS

Jo int D eclaratio n o n Internatio nal Mechanisms fo r Pro mo ting Freedo m o f Expressio n by the UN Special Rappo rteur o n Freedo m o f O pinio n and Expressio n, the O SCE Representative o n Freedo m o f the Media and the O AS Special Rappo rteur o n Freedo m o f Expressio n London, 10 December 2002

Having met w ith representatives of NGO s, UNESCO , journalistsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; associations and hum an rights experts in London on 9-10 Decem ber 2002, under the auspices of ARTICLE 19, Global Campaign for Free Expression; Reiterating, on the occasion of Hum an Rights Day, that an environm ent of respect for all hum an rights is necessary for realisation in practice of the right to freedom of expression; Recalling and reaffirming the Joint Declarations of 26 Novem ber 1999, 30 Novem ber 2000 and 20 Novem ber 2001; Condemning attacks on journalists, including assassinations and threats, as w ell as the clim ate of im punity that still exists in m any countries, as noted in the Joint Declaration of 30 Novem ber 2000; Recognising the im portance and m utually reinforcing role in a dem ocracy of the tw in pillars of a free m edia and an independent, effective judiciary; Welcoming the establishm ent of the International Crim inal Court; Stressing that problem s associated w ith a w eak judiciary cannot be addressed through restrictions on freedom of expression; Cognisant of the threat posed by increasing concentration of ow nership of the m edia and the m eans of com m unication, in particular to diversity and editorial independence; Aware of the im portant corrective function played by the m edia in exposing political and econom ic corruption and other w rongdoing; Recalling the concern expressed in the Joint Declaration of 20 Novem ber 2001 over interference in the free flow of inform ation and ideas by elected political officials and m em bers of governm ent w ho are m edia ow ners; M indful of the ongoing abuse of crim inal defam ation law s, including by politicians and other public figures; JO INT D ECLARATIO N

BY

O SCE, UN

AND

O AS

279

Welcoming the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa and the com m itm ent of the African Com m ission on Hum an and Peoples’ Rights to adopt a regional m echanism to prom ote the right to freedom of expression; N oting the need for specialised m echanism s to prom ote freedom of expression in every region of the w orld; Adopt the follow ing Declaration: Freedo m o f Expressio n and the Administratio n o f Justice • Special restrictions on com m enting on courts and judges cannot be justified; the judiciary play a key public role and, as such, m ust be subject to open public scrutiny.

• No restrictions on reporting on ongoing legal proceedings m ay be justified unless there is a substantial risk of serious prejudice to the fairness of those proceedings and the threat to the right to a fair trial or to the presum ption of innocence outw eighs the harm to freedom of expression.

• Any sanctions for reporting on legal proceedings should be applied only after a fair and public hearing by a com petent, independent and im partial tribunal; the practice of sum m ary justice being applied in cases involving criticism of judicial proceedings is unacceptable.

• Courts and judicial processes, like other public functions, are subject to the principle of m axim um disclosure of inform ation w hich m ay be overcom e only w here necessary to protect the right to a fair trial or the presum ption of innocence.

• Judges’ right to freedom of expression, and to com m ent on m atters of public concern, should be subject only to such narrow and lim ited restrictions as are necessary to protect their independence and im partiality.

Co mmercialisatio n and Freedo m o f Expressio n • Governm ents and public bodies should never abuse their custody over public finances to try to influence the content of m edia reporting; the placem ent of public advertising should be based on m arket considerations.

• Media ow ners have a responsibility to respect the right to freedom of expression and, in particular, editorial independence.

280

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

â&#x20AC;˘ The right to freedom of expression and to a diversity of inform ation and ideas should be respected in international financial arrangem ents, including the upcom ing round of World Trade O rganisation negotiations, and by international financial institutions.

Criminal D efamatio n â&#x20AC;˘ Crim inal defam ation is not a justifiable restriction on freedom of expression; all crim inal defam ation law s should be abolished and replaced, w here necessary, w ith appropriate civil defam ation law s.

Am beyi Ligabo UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of O pinion and Expression Freim ut Duve O SCE Representative on Freedom of the M edia Eduardo Bertoni O AS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression

JO INT D ECLARATIO N

BY

O SCE, UN

AND

O AS

281

Pro jects 2002/ 2003

Freedo m o f the Media and Co rruptio n Fo urth Central Asian Media Co nference Tashkent, 26-27 September 2002 The annual Central Asian M edia Conference w as held on 26-27 Septem ber 2002 in Tashkent, Uzbekistan. The conference w as organized by the O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, Freim ut Duve, and the O SCE Centre in Tashkent in co-operation w ith the O pen Society Institute.

For the fourth tim e m ore than 100 journalists from all five Central Asian States cam e together to discuss the latest developm ents in the m edia field. The vivid discussions show ed again the need for this regional dialogue, especially in light of the tragic events of 11 Septem ber 2001. Many journalists affirm ed that their w orking conditions had been deteriorating in the last year. The tendency tow ards repression w as clear, and m any cases of m edia harassm ent w ere reported. The critical im portance of freedom of the m edia and the need for public debate w as em phasized – especially in tim es of antiterrorist conflict.

The m ain them e of the conference w as corruption as a challenge for freedom of the m edia. Furtherm ore the relationship betw een religious freedom and freedom of expression w as discussed.

The deliberations over the tw o days show ed that m any of the problem s debated in this forum in the last years rem ain unresolved and therefore the concerns from the Dushanbe and Alm aty Declarations w ere reiterated.

Tashkent D eclaratio n o n Freedo m o f the Media and Co rruptio n 1. The m edia should be free to play its fundam ental role as society’s w atchdog against corruption, w hich is a serious obstacle for all countries both East and West.

2. The m edia should be free to exercise their corrective function tow ards econom ic, ecological and m ilitary decisions in their countries especially w ith regard to investigating the grow ing danger of corruption.

282

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

3. Journalists from all five Central Asian States should continue the practice, started in the fram ew ork of this conference, to exch an ge view s an d co-operate, in order to better defen d th eir in terests. Solidarity am on g th e journ alistic com m un ity is im perative.

4. The international com m unity should continue to observe closely the situation in the field of freedom of the m edia and support the journalists in their w ork.

5. Journalists should be protected w hile fulfilling their professional tasks, especially w hen covering controversial topics such as corruption in society.

6. Mem bers of Parliam ent m ust assist in the necessary public debate on corruption.

7. Functioning independent courts should ensure that law s related to journalists are being fully and fairly im plem ented.

PRO JECTS 2002/2003

283

Freedo m o f the Media and the Internet Workshop, Vienna, 30 N ovember 2002

The O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media has expressed several tim es his concern about the restrictions im posed on the use of the Internet in different O SCE regions. In Novem ber 2001, the O SCE Representative together w ith the other tw o international specialized m andates dealing w ith freedom of expression – the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of O pinion and Expression and the O AS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression – issued a Joint Declaration Challenges to Freedom of Expression in the N ew Century. In the Declaration they stated: “The international com m unity, as w ell as national governm ents, should actively prom ote universal access to the Internet, including through supporting the establishm ent of inform ation com m unication technology (ICT) centres.” In 2002 the Representative launched a special project on Freedom of the M edia and the Internet. This project aim ed to explore and analyse the controversial issues concerning freedom of the m edia on the Internet, and to find w ays to ensure that the Internet w ill rem ain an international vehicle of freedom of expression and freedom of the m edia. With the purpose to explore and analyse such controversial issues as: the access to the Internet com bined w ith the basic technical and ethical education; censorship; the dim inishing im portance of constitutional rights (international com panies providing connectivity underm ine the im portance of som e basic constitutional rights, including freedom of expression and freedom of the m edia, of their custom ers.

Hence, w e see a dim inishing ability of governm ents to safeguard those rights); the stifling effect of intellectual property claim s on the free debate; the effects of Septem ber 11 on the Internet, the Representative’s O ffice organized a w orkshop w ith m edia and ICT experts. The w orkshop brought together the Representative’s staff m em bers and som e six m edia and ICT experts from the O SCE region. The results of the w orkshop w ere published in a booklet From Q uill to Cursor: Freedom of the M edia in the Digital Era, Vienna 2003.

284

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

Public Service Bro adcasting: New Challenges, New So lutio ns M eeting, Ljubljana, 10-11 M arch 2003 The m eeting on Public Service Broadcasting in Ljubljana on 10-11 March 2003 addressed key challenges facing a m odern broadcast ecology both in the EU Mem ber States and candidate countries for accession.

Case studies based on national experience provided insights into current dilem m as of the broadcasting sector: w hether digital proliferation and liberalization of the m edia m arkets endanger the survival of a financially viable independent and responsible public service broadcaster. The participants w ere requested to express their opinions on how it is possible to sustain the â&#x20AC;&#x153;full portfolioâ&#x20AC;? public service broadcasting in sm all to m id-size m arkets.

The m eeting w as addressed by Mr. Freim ut Duve, the O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media and Professor Jo Groebel, Director-General of the European Institute for the Media. The organizers had asked m edia experts and m edia executives from Ireland, Poland, Slovenia and Sw eden to prepare case studies. The organizers also invited representatives of the Council of Europe and the European Broadcasting Union to attend the m eeting.

Reco mmendatio ns Constitutional dem ocratic societies depend on com m unication and m ore specifically on m ass m edia. Mass m edia create or reflect the public agenda and take care of its distribution am ong the citizens.

They contribute to identity, com m on understanding, and the necessary inform ation for citizens in a dem ocracy. They also shape w orld view s and values.

A m odern society m ust therefore guarantee that respective content is accessible for all citizens, free and uncom prom ised by any political, com m ercial or other individual interest.

While a com m ercial m arket in bigger countries m ay, to a certain extent, take care of this autom atically, in sm aller and econom ically volatile countries it is necessary to establish a broadcasting system providing program m e and structural guarantees w hich cover independent inform ation and the representation of all societal groups, as w ell as offer an integration platform for all. Such a system is capable of shaping the national identity, participation through culture and PRO JECTS 2002/2003

285

education, and finally innovation in broadcasting as a cultural value.

These functions cannot all be guaranteed by a com m ercial system ; they are typically covered by public service broadcasting system s.

Additionally, in som e countries, the public service broadcaster m ay be the only m ajor national m edia organization left.

They m ust be capable of m aintaining the high level of original program m e production in order to fulfil the obligations and set a standard of high quality program m ing for the broadcasting industry as a w hole.

While m aintaining the clear distinctiveness from com m ercial broadcasters, they m ust be able to attract a w ide audience. It is also their role to spearhead technological innovation in order to use new technologies and all suitable delivery platform s to reach the audience.

Parliam ents and governm ents in EU candidate countries should adopt or im prove existing legal and institutional fram ew orks for public service broadcasting to m ake pursuit of these goals possible. These fram ew orks should safeguard the independence and public accountability of public service broadcasting organizations, inter alia, by separating them from the civil service and rem oving any unw arranted interference by public authorities in their operation, and by providing for the adequate and secure financing. Legal provisions should define the public service broadcasting rem it in a clear, detailed and verifiable w ay, setting them clearly apart from com m ercial broadcasting but, at the sam e tim e, m aking room for attractive m ass appeal program m ing in their schedules. The range of program m es should serve all groups of society, including those neglected by com m ercial broadcasters, such as ethnic m inorities and others. States should encourage and prom ote self-regulatory schem es in the area of program m e standards and journalistic ethics. They should also safeguard the existence of audio-visual archives w ithin public service broadcasting organizations as repositories of the nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s audio-visual heritage to be used by public service broadcasters for the general benefit.

Financing system s for public service broadcasting should provide for diversified sources of revenue (including licence fees, advertising, governm ent services and ow n revenue) as w ell as for the financial transparency of public service broadcasters, including separate accounts for program m ing and non-public service activities, should they exist. If advertising is allow ed it should be treated only as a supplem entary source of revenue. Where governm ent subsidies are provided, they should be granted on a secure, long-term basis, w ithout infringing on the independence of public service broadcasters.

286

O VERVIEW â&#x20AC;&#x201C; W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

Special financial or assistance schem es should be put in place in order to enable public service broadcasters to adopt digital technology and develop new channels for digital terrestrial broadcasting.

The financial security and econom ic independence of public service broadcasters are necessary for their proper operation and credibility in society. It is the duty of national parliam ents and governm ents to ensure stable and adequate financing for them . It is also their duty to prom ote the developm ent of a political and civic culture w hich guarantees the proper environm ent for public service broadcasting as an em anation of civil society.

The European Union, w hich m ade dem ocratic institutions a condition of accession, should â&#x20AC;&#x201C; w hile respecting the principle of subsidiarity â&#x20AC;&#x201C; specify m ore clearly w hat this m eans in relation to public service broadcasting. The European Union should treat public service broadcasting as m ore than just a difficult case of applying state aid rules or com petition law. It should m ake safeguarding of public service broadcasting a crucial goal of its audio-visual policy. The principal goals of this policy should be enshrined in the new Constitutional Treaty, w hich secure a proper place for m edia pluralism and m edia services in the general interest in the European Com m unity.

The assem bled participants in the conference call on national parliam ents and governm ents, on the EU, O SCE, and the Council of Europe to adopt these goals as fundam ental principles of their m edia policies and to strive actively for their im plem entation. This should include international co-operation betw een public service broadcasters in program m ing exchange, co-production and training. The assem bled participants also call on the EBU to continue its active involvem ent in this effort.

PRO JECTS 2002/2003

287

War: Images and Language Co verage o f Co nflicts in the Media, 1991-2003 Round Table with UN IS, Vienna , 17-18 M arch 2003

O n 17 March 2003 a round table entitled War: Images and Language – Coverage of Conflicts in the M edia, 1991 to 2003 w as held at the Diplom atic Academ y, Vienna. Jointly organized by the United Nations Inform ation Service in Vienna and the O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media the round table brought together 15 journalists, academ ics and m em bers of the Secretariat of Intergovernm ental O rganizations. O ne of the round table’s focuses w as on the com plicated range of issues regarding the relationship betw een the m edia and conflicts.

Dean Kazoleas, Professor of Com m unications, Illinois State University, said the tw enty-first century w as one of a “public relations w arfare” as a consequence of w hich m ilitary and governm ents have begun using m ore and m ore sophisticated public affairs techniques in their desire to control the im pact of im ages and inform ation. This m akes the objectivity of the m edia a difficult goal to attain. But the landscape w as not so bleak as the Internet and advanced satellite im ages now provided open access to inform ation so that “im ages and events cannot be hidden from societies”.

Mark Thom pson, author and consultant, O xford University, said the inform ation revolution affected both conflicts and the coverage of conflicts. During the nineties governm ents and NGO S w orked together – for exam ple, during the hum anitarian interventions in Bosnia, Kosovo, East Tim or and Afghanistan – to increase the attention paid to local m edia reform and developm ent. The result had been a strengthening of dem ocracy. Thom pson said the im pending w ar w ith Iraq appeared to be taking the m edia in a different direction. The Bush Adm inistration w as talking about establishing a US m ilitary controlled press in post-w ar Iraq w hich m eant the Iraqi m edia w ould not be exposed to m ultilateral influences, such as those of the EU, O SCE, the UN, or NGO s, as in Kosovo or Bosnia.

Liam McDow all, O utreach Coordinator, International Crim inal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY), said that international and dom estic m edia exposure of crim es against hum anity by the Milosevic regim e, had led to the establishm ent of the ICTY. Yet he noted the ICTY’s 288

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

very lim ited success to date in bringing journalists/editors in form er Yugoslavia to trial for inciting hatred/genocide. In contrast the international court set up to deal w ith genocide cases in Rw anda had prosecuted defendants for “direct incitem ent to genocide” because the propaganda had been m uch m ore blatant and therefore easier to prosecute under international law.

Ruth Wodak, University of Vienna, spoke of the negative influence of the global m edia: the sm all tim e slots accorded to new s events m eant little depth to reporting prevailed. Im ages w ere presented w ithout text, in 15 or 30 second sound bites. This resulted in very sim plistic w ays of tackling com plex issues. The consequence: an erosion of the collective m em ory.

As regards verbal rhetoric, Wodak said a case in point w as for exam ple the post-Sept. 11 days w ith President Bush’s talk of w anting Bin Laden “Dead or Alive”, his religious crusader-type rhetoric. Such talk led to polarization rendering diplom atic negotiations very difficult; any rational course becam e difficult to undertake as w itnessed in the current diplom atic im passe over Iraq’s disarm am ent, Wodak com m ented. The m edia reproduces this polarization, a polarization m ade m ore acute because of the global m edia’s short sound bites, she continued.

Regarding the Bush Adm inistration’s referral to its current m assive bom bing threat against Iraq in the initial days of a w ar as “a cam paign of shock and aw e”, Wodak, University of Vienna, called this phrase “a euphem istic w ay of dealing w ith horrific things”. But Kazoleas said such violent rhetoric should be seen as part of a current US propaganda cam paign – com bined for exam ple, w ith its recent dropping of 700,000 leaflets over Iraq – to induce Saddam Hussein’s m ilitary leaders to topple the dictator.

The Germ an journalist Andreas Beer, South West Radio (SWR), Baden-Baden, spoke of Germ an politicians’ use of clichés such as the “fight against terrorism ”, w hich did not exist as a com m on term in the Germ an m edia before Septem ber 11; now it w as prevalent. Germ an politicians used the term , even sim ultaneously w ith the w ords “hum anitarian intervention”, as in Afghanistan. In other w ords, Germ an politicians w ere interw eaving peacekeeping and m ultilateral actions w ith the fight against terrorism .

Indeed no governm ent w anted to use the w ord “w ar”. Instead, such phrases as “intervention”, “disarm ing Saddam Hussein” are used, according to Alexander Ivanko, O ffice of the O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, Vienna.

PRO JECTS 2002/2003

289

The US m edia, in the current Iraq build-up to w ar, tended to be uncritical of the US adm inistration’s policies tow ards Iraq, Andrew Purvis, Time M agazine, South-Eastern Europe correspondent believes.

The m edia had not set the agenda. Therefore as the US and UK appears to be entering a w ar, the O SCE and such organizations should analyse propaganda em anating from the theatre of w ar rapidly. Jam es Arbuckle, Lester B. Pearson International Peacekeeping Training Centre, Nova Scotia, pointed to the im portant role of disinform ation in w ar.

As Freim ut Duve, O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media and co-chairperson of the sem inar, aptly put it: “War propaganda alw ays accom panied conflicts of the tw entieth century” especially World War II. But since 1945 reductionism has prevailed, for exam ple in the use of “Com m unism ” vs. “Fascism ”. This current trend needs to be countered, and societies need to accept the different collective w ar experiences of other nations on the one hand, and their com m on values on the other. The m edia has an im portant role to play in exam ining these different experiences and in helping audiences hostile to one another – such as Israelis and Palestinians – bridge psychological gaps created by conflict.

290

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

Media in Multilingual So cieties Conference, Bern, 28-29 M arch 2003

Pointing out the constructive role m edia could and should play in com bating discrim ination, prom oting tolerance and building stable peace in m ultilingual societies, this project conducted by the O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media aim ed to overcom e prejudices and intolerance in the m edia against citizens w ho are m em bers of certain ethnic groups.

There has been increasing recognition am ongst governm ents and civil society of the need for a flourishing m edia environm ent in m ultilingual societies to ensure diversity and freedom in dem ocracies.

This project looked to a certain extent at the establishm ent of the necessary legislative or regulatory fram ew ork, and placed special em phasis on the practice of m inority m edia operators and governm ents offering support. In m any countries of the O SCE region good and innovative exam ples of fostering a diverse and effective m edia environm ent in m ultilingual societies can be found. Sw itzerland and Luxem bourg can be taken as shining m odels of the w ay m edia are operating in a m ultilingual dem ocratic society. In southern Serbia effective and responsible m edia are helping to foster a clim ate of tolerance am ong the Serbian and Albanian com m unities.

The project also exam ined the w orking environm ent for the m edia in som e O SCE participating States, w here responsible action on the part of the governm ent w ould enable the m edia to play a decisive role in the conflict prevention field. Results from this project and from a conference held in Bern in March 2003 are published in the book M edia in M ultilingual Societies.

PRO JECTS 2002/2003

291

Freedo m o f the Media and the Internet Conference, Amsterdam, 13-14 June 2003 The O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, Freim ut Duve, organized a tw o-day conference titled Freedom of the M edia and the Internet. The conference took place on 13 and 14 June 2003 in the City Hall of Am sterdam .

The conference brought together international experts including m em bers of the European Parliam ent, Council of Europe, European Com m ission, O SCE, academ ia, m edia and a num ber of NGO s from Europe and the US. The w ide range of conference topics included the current problem s of m edia freedom on the Internet; the technical and econom ic fram ew ork as w ell as the influence of code and com panies; country reports from Turkey, Serbia and Montenegro, Finland, and Lithuania; the regulatory fram ew ork in the O SCE region; and technical problem s and social consequences regarding the access to digital netw orks.

At the end of this conference the Representative on Freedom of the Media issued the Am sterdam Recom m endations on Freedom of the Media and the Internet. In O ctober 2003 a book w as published: Spreading the Word on the Internet: 16 Answers to 4 Q uestions.

A m s te rdam Re co m m e ndatio ns Freedo m o f the Media and the Internet Convinced that no m atter w hat technical m eans are used to channel the w ork of journalists to the public – be it TV, radio, new spapers or the Internet – the basic constitutional value of freedom of the m edia m ust not be questioned; Reaffirming that this principle, w hich is older than m ost of today’s m edia, is one that all m odern European societies are com m itted to; Alarmed that censorship is being im posed on the Internet and new m easures are being developed to prevent the free flow of inform ation; Reaffirming the principles expressed in the Joint Statem ent by O SCE, UN and O AS in London on 20 Novem ber 2001; Taking note of the Council of Europe Declaration on freedom of com m unication on the Internet from 28 May 2003; 292

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

The O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media invited representatives from academ ia, m edia, specialized NGO s from Europe and the US as w ell as from the European Parliam ent, Council of Europe, European Com m ission, and O SCE to take part in a conference on “Freedom of the Media and the Internet” held 13 -14 June 2003 in Am sterdam , the Netherlands. During the conference the follow ing recom m endations, proposed by the O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, w ere m ade: Access • The Internet provides a num ber of different services. Som e of them are still in the developm ent phase. They serve as tools, often indispensable ones, for citizens as w ell as journalists and thus are im portant for a free m edia landscape. The technology as such m ust not be held responsible for any potential m isuse.

Innovation m ust not be ham pered.

• Access to digital netw orks and the Internet m ust be fostered.

Barriers at all levels, be they technical, structural or educational, m ust be dism antled.

• To a considerable extent the fast pace of innovation of digital netw orks is due to the fact that m ost of the basic code and softw are are in the public dom ain, free for everyone to use and enhance. This free-of-charge infrastructure is one of the key elem ents of freedom of expression on the Internet. Access to the public dom ain is im portant for both technical and cultural innovation and m ust not be endangered through the adoption of new provisions related to patent and copyright law.

Freedo m o f Expressio n • The advantages of a vast netw ork of online resources and the free flow of inform ation outw eigh the dangers of m isusing the Internet. But crim inal exploitation of the Internet cannot be tolerated. Illegal content m ust be prosecuted in the country of its origin but all legislative and law enforcem ent activity m ust clearly target only illegal content and not the infrastructure of the Internet itself.

• The global prosecution of crim inal content, such as child pornography, m ust be w arranted and also on the Internet all existing law s m ust be observed. How ever, the basic principle of freedom of expression m ust not be confined and there is no need for new legislation.

PRO JECTS 2002/2003

293

• In a m odern dem ocratic and civil society citizens them selves should m ake the decision on w hat they w ant to access on the Internet. The right to dissem inate and to receive inform ation is a basic hum an right. All m echanism s for filtering or blocking content are not acceptable.

• Any m eans of censorship that are unacceptable w ithin the “classic m edia” m ust not be used for online m edia. New form s of censorship m ust not be developed.

Educatio n • Com puter and Internet literacy m ust be fostered in order to strengthen the technical understanding of the im portance of softw are and code. This is necessary so as to keep open a w indow of opportunity for defining the future role of the Internet and its place in civil society.

• Internet literacy m ust be a prim ary educational goal in school; training courses should also be set up for adults. Special training of journalists should be introduced in order to facilitate their ability to deal w ith online content and to ensure a high standard of professional journalism .

Pro fessio nal Jo urnalism • More and m ore people are able to share their view s w ith a w idening audience through the Internet w ithout resorting to “classic m edia”. Privacy of com m unication betw een individuals m ust be respected. The infrastructure of the Internet is used for m any different purposes and any relevant regulatory bodies m ust be aw are of that.

• Journalism is changing in the digital era and new m edia form s are developing that deserve the sam e protection as “classic m edia”.

• Traditional and w idely accepted values of professional journalism , acknow ledging the responsibility of journalists, should be fostered so as to guarantee a free and responsible m edia in the digital era.

294

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

Principles fo r Guaranteeing Edito rial Independence Round Table, Berlin, 16 July 2003

O n 16 July 2003 The Representative on Freedom of the Media organized a sm all round table on how to guarantee editorial independence. His O ffice proposed the follow ing principles:

Principles fo r Guaranteeing Edito rial Independence Pro po sed by the O SCE Representative o n Freedo m o f the Media O ver the past years, foreign com panies have started investing in the m edia in the em erging dem ocracies. In several countries, foreign ow nership is generally high w ith control exercised over the m ajority of the print m edia. In the history of Europeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s constitutional culture m edia play an im portant and indispensable role for the developm ent of our dem ocracies. The role and therefore the responsibility of the ow ners of journalistic m edia go far beyond other m arket oriented industrial products. In som e Western dem ocracies this difference is m arked by special tax allow ances. These are the reasons w hy the O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media is m onitoring the situation closely. In general he does not get involved in cases w here foreign ow nership of m edia is in line w ith dom estic legislation. How ever, potential reasons for concern exist, especially regarding the editorial policies of the journalistic m edia in light of the often fragile state of dem ocracy and rule of law. O n the other hand freedom of the m edia can be strengthened by investm ents in the m edia.

The O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media has approached m edia com panies w ith international business interests asking them to agree to observe the follow ing principles: â&#x20AC;˘ The ow nership structure of all journalistic m edia, including those that are partly or solely ow ned by foreign investors, m ust be know n by the public. â&#x20AC;˘ O n the editorial independence of the journalistic m edia, a com m on code of conduct should be reached betw een the staff and the board of directors on basic journalistic principles.

PRO JECTS 2002/2003

295

• This com m on code of conduct shall at least contain the follow ing principles: – standing up for hum an rights; – standing up for the fundam ental dem ocratic rights, the parliam entary system and international understanding, as laid dow n in the United Nations Charter; – fighting totalitarian activities of any political tendency; – fighting any nationalist or racial discrim ination.

• Any institutional political affiliation of a journalistic m edium should be clearly and publicly stated.

• Should cases of the dism issal of editors-in-chief be controversial, they could be brought before the O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media w ho w ould, upon request by one of the parties involved, act as arbitrator. This role w ould be lim ited to journalistic m atters. He or she w ould speak out in favour or against the dism issal on the basis of the journalistic principles referred to in the m andate 1 . This, how ever, shall not affect the right to dism iss the editor-in-chief for serious non-journalistic reasons. Furtherm ore, it shall not exclude the ordinary jurisdiction.

• Where a com pany holds m ore than one title, it com m its itself to safeguarding journalistic independence and plurality as a contribution to dem ocratization and to strengthening freedom of the m edia.

1

296

“The O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media m ay at all tim es collect and receive from participating States and other interested parties (e.g. from organizations or institutions, from m edia and their representatives, and from relevant NGO s) requests, suggestions and com m ents related to strengthening and further developing com pliance w ith relevant O SCE principles and com m itm ents, including alleged serious instances of intolerance by participating States w hich utilize m edia in violation of the principles referred to in the Budapest Docum ent, Chapter VIII, paragraph 25, and in the Decisions of the Rom e Council Meeting, Chapter X. He or she m ay forw ard requests, suggestions and com m ents to the Perm anent Council recom m ending further action w here appropriate.”

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

Media in Multicultural and Multilingual So cieties Fifth Central Asian Media Co nference Bishkek, 17-18 September 2003

The Fifth Central Asian M edia Conference organized by the O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Freim ut Duve and the O SCE Centre in Bishkek in co-operation w ith CIMERA w as held on 17-18 Septem ber in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. The 120 participants included journalists from four of the Central Asia countries, governm ent officials, Mem bers of Parliam ent and the civil society, am ong others.

Unfortunately, no participants from Turkm enistan w ere able to attend the conference.

The im portance of rem aining critical tow ards negative developm ents in all countries rather than m aking com parisons betw een them w as underlined during the discussions.

The participants noted that the issues and problem s highlighted in the previous declarations from the conferences in Bishkek 1999, Dushanbe 2000, Alm aty 2001 and Tashkent 2002 still rem ain valid and of utm ost concern to the m edia professionals. Above all the current global fight against terrorist crim inals should not be used as a pretext to ham per civil liberties. The follow ing conclusions w ere stressed during the debates: Bis hke k D e claratio n 1. The m edia should be able to exercise its corrective function tow ards the econom ic interests and activities of politicians and their fam ilies w ithout any legal or other consequences. This is essential for the future success of the countriesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; econom ic developm ent.

2. Governm ents should ensure that citizens as m em bers of the different linguistic and cultural groups represented in the society have the right and the opportunity to freely express their view s and preserve their language and culture via m edia.

3. The m edia should be free to play its constructive role in com bating discrim ination, prom oting understanding and building stable peace in m ulticultural and m ultilingual societies. Hate speech m ust not be used to advocate and provoke violence.

PRO JECTS 2002/2003

297

4. Governm ents should ensure broad access for journalists to sources of inform ation of public relevance. Governm ents should prevent and resolve cases of harassm ent by pow er structures of the m edia and journalists in Central Asia. Access should be guaranteed to state and non-state m edia equally.

5. Access to m edia for everybody should be ensured and supported.

Control through printing, distribution, taxes and licences should not be used to deny and hinder access to inform ation for the public.

6. Media councils could be set up to facilitate, m ediate and solve conflicts arising from journalistic activities as an alternative to court processes. The m em bers should be elected and operate truly independent from state structures.

7. A clear distinction should be m ade betw een journalistic activities and public relations w ork for pow er structures and businesses.

The public should be able to differentiate betw een these tw o.

8. Libel should be decrim inalized and insult law s that provide undue protection for public officials repealed. In cases of civil libel the fines levied on the m edia by courts of law should be proportionate and not have a chilling effect on investigative journalism or lead to bankruptcy.

298

O VERVIEW â&#x20AC;&#x201C; W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

Libel and Insult Law s: What mo re can be do ne to decriminalize libel and repeal insult law s?

Conference with Reporters sans frontières, Paris, 24-25 N ovember 2003 O bjectives: To encourage and facilitate an exchange of ideas on existing libel legislation in O SCE participating States w ith a view to issuing recom m endations on how to proceed w ith decrim inalizing libel and repealing insult law s that provide for undue protection for public officials. The conference w ill be organized in partnership w ith Reporters sans frontières (RSF) and held in Paris, France, on 24-25 Novem ber 2003.

Background: The existence of crim inal libel legislation and of socalled insult law s in several O SCE participating States has over the years ham pered the w ork of the m edia, putting undue pressure on those journalists w ho investigate such issues as corruption, especially involving governm ent officials. Crim inal libel law s are also used to protect high-ranking civil servants and politicians from criticism w here specific insult law s do not exist (w hich offer protection to such officials, i.e. legislation that m akes it a crim e to “insult” the dignity of the Head of State, Speaker of Parliam ent, Prim e Minister, etc.)

Although crim inal libel and insult legislation are still part of the crim inal code in several Western European countries, it is rarely used, if ever. How ever, its m ere existence is often referred to by those O SCE participating States am ong the developing dem ocracies that im pose incarceration for libel.

Freim ut Duve, the O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, has on several occasions spoken in different fora on the need to decrim inalize libel in all O SCE m em ber countries and to repeal insult law s that provide undue protection from criticism for politicians. Som e countries have follow ed suit; som e are still actively using such legislation to silence independent m edia w hich are m ostly in opposition to the current governm ent.

A publication based on the results of the round table is envisaged.

Reco mmendatio ns The participants at the conference on Libel and Insult Laws, organized by the O rganization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (O SCE) PRO JECTS 2002/2003

299

Representative on Freedom of the Media and Reporters sans frontières (RSF) and held in Paris (France) on 24-25 Novem ber 2003, discussed existing libel legislation in O SCE participating States. They took into account international standards relating to freedom of expression, including Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Hum an Rights and shared standards and com m itm ents of O SCE participating States. They focused on decrim inalizing libel and repealing insult law s that provide undue protection for public officials.

They agreed that overuse or m isuse of libel and insult law s to protect the authorities or silence the m edia w ere clear violations of the right to free expression and to inform ation and should be condem ned.

The participants approved the follow ing recom m endations to governm ents/officials, legislatures, judicial bodies and funding agencies in O SCE participating States: To go vernments/ o fficials: •

Governm ents should support decrim inalization of libel and the repeal of so-called insult law s, particularly to the extent that they provide special protection for the “honour and dignity” of public officials.

•

The party claim ing to have been defam ed should bear the onus of bringing a defam ation suit at all stages of the proceedings; public prosecutors should play no role in this process.

•

Public officials, including senior governm ent officers, should be open to m ore public scrutiny and criticism . They should exercise restraint in filing suits for defam ation against the m edia and should never do so w ith a view to punishing the m edia.

To legislatures: •

Crim inal libel and defam ation law s should be repealed and replaced, w here necessary, w ith appropriate civil law s.

•

In cases w here they are retained, the presum ption of innocence should be applied.

•

So-called insult law s, particularly those that provide undue protection for public officials, should be repealed.

•

Civil defam ation law s should be am ended, as necessary, to conform to the follow ing principles: - only physical or legal persons should be allow ed to institute

300

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

defam ation suits, not public or governm ental bodies; - State sym bols and other objects (such as flags, religious sym bols) should not be protected by defam ation law s; - proof of truth should be a com plete defence in a defam ation case; - in cases involving statem ents on m atters of public interest, defam ation defendants should benefit from a defence of reasonable publication w here, in all the circum stances, it w as reasonable to dissem inate the statem ent, even if it later proves to be inaccurate; and - reasonable ceilings should be introduced for defam ation penalties, based on the current econom ic situation in each country.

To judicial bo dies: •

The scope of w hat is considered to be defam atory should be interpreted narrow ly and, to the extent possible, restricted to statem ents of fact and not opinions.

•

Where libel is still a crim inal offence, the presum ption of innocence should be applied so that the party bringing the case has to prove all of the elem ents of the offence, including that the statem ents are false, that they w ere m ade w ith know ledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth and that they w ere m ade w ith an intention to cause harm .

•

Where libel is still a crim inal offence, courts should refrain from im posing prison sentences, including suspended ones.

•

Non-pecuniary rem edies, including self-regulatory rem edies, should, to the extent that they redress the harm done, be preferred over financial penalties.

•

Any financial penalties should be proportionate, taking into account any self-regulatory or non-pecuniary rem edies, and refer to dem onstrable dam ages only, not punitive dam ages.

•

Defam ation law s should not be used to bankrupt the m edia.

To funding agencies: •

Funding agencies, in providing aid to O SCE participating States, m ust take into account the attitude of regim es that crack dow n on freedom of expression, notably through the m isuse of libel.

PRO JECTS 2002/2003

301

Visits and Interventio ns M arch 2002 – O ctober 2003 1

Visits o f the Representative - 6-9 Septem ber 2002 visit to Tel Aviv - Novem ber 2002 visit to Washington - June 2003 farew ell visit to London - Septem ber 2003 farew ell visit to Moscow - O ctober 2003 farew ell visit to New York and Washington - Novem ber 2003 farew ell visit to Paris

The O ffice of the Representative on Freedom of the Media visited or corresponded w ith the follow ing governm ents of the O SCE participating States: Armenia Visits - 7-10 June 2003, visit of senior adviser Alexander Ivanko to attend a m eeting of O SCE press and inform ation assistants and to m eet w ith Arm enian broadcasting officials.

Interventions - 3 April 2002 to Foreign Minister Vardan O skanyan on the failure of the independent TV station A1+ to be granted through a tender process run by the National Com m ission on TV and Radio the frequency on w hich A1+ has been broadcasting since 1996.

- 31 Decem ber 2002 to Foreign Minister Vardan O skanyan on the m urder of journalist Tigran Nagdalyan, head of Arm enia’s Public Television and Radio.

- 2 May 2003 to Foreign Minister Vardan O skanyan on the assault upon Mher Ghalechian, a journalist for the opposition new spaper, Chorrord Iskhanutyan.

- 2 July 2003 to Foreign Minister Vardan O skanyan about the debate on libel in Arm enia.

1 This is a selected list of our activities during the year.

302

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

Azerbaijan Visits - 27-29 Novem ber 2003 visit by research officer Ana Karlsreiter to m eet w ith Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials and Azerbaijani journalists.

Interventions - 9 July 2002 to President Heydar Aliyev on concern about apparent return to state control envisaged in draft law “O n TV and Radio Broadcasting”.

- 6 Decem ber 2002 to Foreign Minister Vilayat Gouliyev on defam atory cam paign against non-state m edia launched by the official press and the use of governm ent-controlled courts to harass non-state m edia by m eans of defam ation suits.

- 7 May 2003 to Foreign Minister Vilayat Gouliyev on a violent attack on the opposition daily Yeni M usavat.

- 24 Septem ber 2003 to Foreign Minister Vilayat Gouliyev on physical attacks by police on independent and opposition journalists covering pre-election rallies in Masaly and the detention of tw o journalists in Leknoran.

- 17 O ctober 2003 to Foreign Minister Vilayat Gouliyev concerning severe beating of journalists in Baku follow ing the presidential elections and reports that journalists throughout Azerbaijan w ere prevented from covering the elections and w ere subject to beatings and insults.

Belarus Interventions - 9 April 2003 to Foreign Minister Mikhail Khvostov about cases of harassm ent of journalists and non-governm ent m edia, including the crim inal libel case against Pahonya’s editor-in-chief Nikolai Markevich and journalist Pavel Mozheiko.

- 21 Novem ber 2003 to Foreign Minister Mikhail Khvostov regarding the discovery in Belarus of the body of Mikhailo Kolom iets, head of the Ukrainian new s agency Ukrainski N ovyny.

- 30 May 2003 to Foreign Minister Sergei Martynov on the threem onth suspension of publication of the independent new spapers Belaruskaya Delovaya Gazeta (BDG) and BDG-For Internal Use O nly.

VISITS AND INTERVENTIO NS

303

Bulgaria Interventions - 21 May 2002 to the Minister of Foreign Affairs H.E. Solom on Passy asking for m ore inform ation on the case of Katja Kasabova, w ho w as sentenced by the Burgas district court for libel after she published several articles on corruption in the Bulgarian Educational System .

- 26 June 2003 to the Minister of Foreign Affairs H.E. Solom on Passy asking for assessm ent of the results of a study published by Article 19 investigating the num ber of law suits brought against m edia and journalists in the country.

Czech Republic Interventions - 29 July 2002 to the Minister of Foreign Affairs H.E. Jan Kavan asking for additional inform ation on the alleged conspiracy to m urder the w ell-know n journalist Sabina Slonkova.

Geo rgia Interventions - 24 April 2003 to Foreign Minister Irakli Menagarishvili on the crim inal inquiry into the investigative new s program m e 60 M inutes of the independent television station Rustavi 2 and about the latterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s $4.6 m illion crim inal libel law suit.

- 2 July 2003 to Foreign Minister Irakli Menagarishvili on sections of the draft Crim inal Code of Georgia that deal w ith defam ation and insult.

Hungary Interventions - 21 January 2002 to the Minister of Foreign Affairs H.E. Dr. Janos Martonyi asking for clarification in tw o cases: The new spaper M agyar N emzet has published a list w ith nam es of foreign correspondents w ho had com m ented critically on Hungary. The m anagem ent of the public broadcaster has taken the program m e Beszeljuk meg! off the air.

304

O VERVIEW â&#x20AC;&#x201C; W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

Kazakhstan Interventions - 5 March 2002 to Foreign Minister Tokayev on the follow ing: Vremja Po, Respublika – Delovoye O bozreniye and SolDat have for som e tim e not been able to find publishers w illing to print them .

A political talk show led by Ms. Gulzhan Ergalieva on Channel 31 w as taken off the air in February 2002. Furtherm ore, the Tan Channel w as taken off the air on 4 March 2002.

- 17 July 2002 to Foreign Minister Tokayev on Sergei Duvanov w ho w as charged w ith crim inal libel based on a corruption article on President Nazarbayev.

- 2 August 2002 to Foreign Minister Tokayev on the unclear circum stances surrounding the death of the daughter of Lira Bayseitova, editor of Respublika 2000.

- 31 August 2002 to Foreign Minister Tokayev on the beating of Sergei Duvanov.

- 28 O ctober 2002 to Foreign Minister Tokayev on the arrest of Sergei Duvanov on rape charges.

- 20 Novem ber 2002 to Foreign Minister Tokayev on the hitand-run car accident resulting in the death of the opposition journalist Nuri Muftakh (co-founder of Respublika 2000).

- 18 Decem ber 2002 to Foreign Minister Tokayev on the observation of Duvanov’s trial.

- 3 March 2003 to Foreign Minister Tokayev on the observation of Duvanov’s appeals process.

- 17 April 2003 to Foreign Minister Tokayev regarding the fact that w ebsites of opposition politicians and m edia had been blocked.

- 24 April 2003 to Foreign Minister Tokayev on the physical attack of Maxim Yeroshin, editor of Rabat, on 16 April after w riting on corruption.

- 7 July 2003 to Foreign Minister Tokayev concerning the fact that the Zham byl O blast Adm inistration for Inform ation and Public Accord has on 10 June 2003 sent a request to all heads of m edia outlets in that region to provide inform ation (e.g. political sym pathies and antipathies of the m edia outlet as w ell as of its individual journalists and nam es of persons and structures having a direct or indirect influence on the m edia outlet).

- 22 July 2003 to Foreign Minister Tokayev concerning SolDAT w hich w as closed by the econom ic court for unclarities in its founding docum entation.

VISITS AND INTERVENTIO NS

305

Kyrgyzstan Visits - 17-18 Septem ber 2003, Fifth Central Asian M edia Conference, Bishkek.

Interventions - 22 January 2002 to Foreign Minister Im analiev on the refusal by the state printing house Uchkun to print M oya Stolitsa-N ovosti for 19 January.

- 8 January 2003 to Foreign Minister Aitm atov on the 13 law suits against the new spaper M oya Stolitsta in 2002 and the fact that senior officials accused the new spaper of “presenting a distorted picture of the political situation in the country” and of “an anti-Kyrgyz bias”.

- 29 May 2003 to President Akayev on the confiscation of M oya Stolitsa’s property and the latest edition of the new spaper as a result of unpaid fines.

Latvia Interventions - 13 March 2002 to the Minister of Foreign Affairs asking for m ore inform ation on the non-extension of the licence of the radio station Biznes & Baltia.

Po land Interventions - 18 April 2002 to the Minister of Foreign Affairs Wlodim ierz Cim oszew icz raising concern about som e provisions of the new draft of the Broadcast Law. - 7 March 2002 to the Minister of Foreign Affairs Wlodim ierz Cim oszew icz expressing concern over the charges brought against three m em bers of the m anaging board of Presspublica.

- 23 April 2002 to the Minister of Foreign Affairs Wlodim ierz Cim oszew icz expressing concern over the new draft Broadcast Law, w hich if passed w ould have serious negative consequences for the independent m edia groups in Poland.

306

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

Russian Federatio n Visits - 15-16 Septem ber 2003, visit to Moscow of Freim ut Duve, accom panied by senior adviser Diana Moxhay, to present a book on the 1962 Der Spiegel affair, the attack on m edia freedom in Germ any, and to m eet w ith senior officials at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and w ith Russian journalists.

Interventions - 13 March 2002 to Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov on the death of journalist Natalya Skryl of the regional new spaper N ashe Vremya, on tw o cases of libel against Moscow independent new spaper N ovaya Gazeta and on the assassination attem pt in Sochi against a N ovaya Gazeta journalist, Sergei Solovkin and his w ife.

- 3 May 2002 to Minister of Press, TV and Radio Broadcasting Mikhail Lesin on the 29 April killing in Togliatti of Valeriy Ivanov, a leading journalist and editor of Tolyatinskoye O bozreniye.

- 5 June 2002 to Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov on the denial of a Russian visa to a senior staff m em ber to participate in a conference organized by the Russian Union of Journalists on The Independence of the N ews M edia in Post-Communist Countries.

- 2 July 2002 to President Vladim ir Putin appealing for a pardon for environm ental journalist, Grigory Pasko, w ho is accused of treason.

- 15 July 2002 to Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov on environm ental journalist Grigory Pasko.

- 20 Novem ber 2002 to Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov on the terror attack in Moscow and its consequences for Russian journalists.

- 23 June 2003 to Minister of Press, TV and Radio Broadcasting Mikhail Lesin on the dissolution by the Russian Governm ent of TVS, Russiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s last rem aining private television com pany w ith a national reach.

- 14 July 2003 to Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov about Konstantin Sterledev and Konstantin Bakharev, journalists of the Perm regional daily new spaper Z vezda, accused of divulging state secrets.

- 26 August 2003 to Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov on the sentencing of journalist Germ an Galkin, publisher of Rabochaya Gazeta and deputy editor of Vecherny Chelyabinsk, to one year in a labour cam p on charges of crim inal defam ation.

- 1 O ctober 2003 to Deputy Foreign Minister Vladim ir Chizhov and to Interior Minister Boris Gryzlov about Russian journalist O lga Kitova of the regional new spaper Belgorodskaya Pravda.

VISITS AND INTERVENTIO NS

307

Slo vak Republic Interventions - 24 April 2002 to the Minister of Foreign Affairs H.E. Eduard Kukan expressing concern over crim inal charges against Denisa Havrlova for “insulting” a public official.

Tajikistan Visits - 16-17 Decem ber 2002, O SCE Round Table on Media Legislation.

Interventions - 25 June 2002 to Foreign Minister Nazarov expressing appreciation that all criminal charges against Atovulloev had been dropped, and that he should also be able to return and continue journalistic w ork.

- 17 July 2002 to Foreign Minister Nazarov on the fact that the only independent radio station in Dushanbe Asia+ did not receive a licence.

- 28 January 2003 to Foreign Minister Nazarov forw arding recom m endations from the Decem ber conference on m edia law s and encouraging starting the am endm ent process.

- 17 April 2003 to Foreign Minister Nazarov on the problem s that TV/radio Jahon has had w ith its broadcast licence since 2001.

- 15 May 2003 to Foreign Minister Nazarov on the blocking of Charogi Ruz’s new ly-launched w ebsite.

Turkmenistan Interventions - 29 April 2002 to Foreign Minister Meredov on the confiscation of the print-run of Moscow -based new spaper Komsomolskaya Pravda because of an article criticizing conditions in Turkm enistan. Access to the new spaper’s w ebsite has been blocked. Since early 2002 other w ebsites have been blocked as w ell (Vremya Novostei, Yevraziya, TsentrAziya, Deutsche Welle, Erkin Turkmenistan, Gundogar).

- 27 May 2002 to Foreign Minister Meredov requesting draft law s on m edia w hich are in preparation and offering assistance in bringing them in line w ith international com m itm ents.

308

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

Uzbekistan Visits - 26-27 Septem ber 2002, Fourth Central Asian M edia Conference, Tashkent.

Interventions - 16 O ctober 2002 to Foreign Minister Kam ilov on a Kyrgyz journalist w ho w as beaten up by Uzbek border guards w hen returning from the Fourth Central Asian M edia Conference.

- 19 Novem ber 2002 to Foreign Minister Kam ilov urging reconsideration of accreditation refusal to Igor Rotar, the Central Asia correspondent of Keston N ews Service.

- 27 February 2003 to Foreign Minister Kam ilov requesting m ore inform ation about four journalists: • O pposition journalist Ergash Bobojanov w as arrested on 17 February and charged w ith crim inal defam ation, revealing state secrets and m aking death threats.

• Gayrat Mehliboev, a reporter on religious issues for the new spapers Khuriyat and M okhiyat, w as sentenced on 18 February 2003 to seven years in prison for supporting the banned Hizb-ut-Tahrir Islam ic group and thereby underm ining the constitutional order.

• Tokhtom urad Toshev, the editor-in-chief of the new spaper Adolat w as arrested in his office on 20 February on unspecified charges.

• O leg Sarapulov, an independent Internet journalist, w as detained on 22 February. A crim inal investigation has been opened against him for the alleged support of Hizb-ut-Tahrir and the overthrow of the constitutional structure.

- 3 June 2003 to Foreign Minister Safayev on Mr. Ruslan Sharipov, Mr. Azam at Mam ankulov and Mr. O leg Sarapulov, all independent journalists, w ho have been arrested and charged for hom osexual acts.

- 1 Septem ber 2003 to Foreign Minister Safayev on Mr. Ruslan Sharipov w ho w as sentenced to 5 years in prison, and urging investigation into alleged threats and m istreatm ent in prison and the attack against his public defender.

VISITS AND INTERVENTIO NS

309

The O ffice participated in the fo llo w ing O SCE and o ther internatio nal meetings and co nferences: O SCE meetings: - Hum an Dim ension Im plem entation Meeting, Warsaw 9-20 Septem ber 2002 - Heads of Missions’ Meeting, Vienna, 14 January 2003 - First Annual Security Review Conference, 24-25 June 2003 - Hum an Dim ension Im plem entation Meeting, Warsaw 6-16 O ctober 2003 - Regional Heads of Missions Meeting, Bishkek, 15-16 Septem ber 2003 - Hum an Dim ension Im plem entation Meeting, Warsaw 6-17 O ctober 2003 O ther internatio nal meetings and co nferences: - Security of Journalists in War Z ones, sem inar, Center for Journalism in Extrem e Situations of the Russian Union of Journalists, Moscow, 12-14 February 2002 - Com m ittee on Hum an Rights and Hum anitarian Aid, Deutscher Bundestag, Berlin, 22 February 2002 - M edia, Conflict and Terrorism, DSE conference, Petersberg/Königsw inter, 8 May 2002 - Public Debate on Press Freedom , Rom e Journalist Association (Foreign Correspondents Platform ), 16 May 2002 - Frankfurt Bookfair, Frankfurt a.M., 9-14 O ctober 2002 - Hearing of EP Com m ittee on Culture, European Parliam ent, Brussels, 12 Novem ber 2002 - M edienmacht und Demokratie, conference, Die Grünen/Europäische Freie Allianz, European Parliam ent, Brussels, 13 Nov. 2002 - M edia Challenges in Central Asia, conference, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Prague, 11-12 April 2003 - Building M edia Freedom: The Spiegel Affair – An Example from Germany, Moscow, 15 Septem ber 2003 - O SCE Cluster of Com petence Annual Meeting, Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva, 19-20 Sept. 2003 - Frankfurt Bookfair, Frankfurt a.M., 8-13 O ctober 2003 - 2nd Frankfurt Days on M edia Law: Com paring Theory and Practice of Media Law in Central and Eastern Europe, Foreign Media Investm ents in Eastern and Southeastern Europe, Danger or O pportunity for Freedom of the Press?

Frankfurt a. O der, 23-24 O ctober 2003 310

O VERVIEW – W HAT W E H AVE D O NE

Media NGO s in the O SCE Regio n

Note: This is a list of NGO s w ith w hich w e have established contact or w hose m aterials have proven useful to our w ork during the past years.

How ever, this is not an exhaustive list of all those NGO s w hich are doing valuable w ork on freedom of m edia issues in the O SCE region.

For m ore inform ation about the NGO s on the list please check the database of m edia NGO s on the w ebsite of the O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media: http:/ / w w w .o sce.o rg/ fo m/ ngo

Accuracy in Media (AIM) Alternativna Inform ativna Mreza (AIM) Am erican Society of New spaper Editors (ASNE) Am nesty International (AI) Andrei Sakharov Foundation (ASF) Article 19 Association of Independent Electronic Media (ANEM) Association of Journalists (Gazeteciler Cem iyeti) Azerbaijan Journalists Confederation (AJK) Balkanm edia Association Belorussian Association of Journalists (BAJ) Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJFE) Center for Journalism in Extrem e Situations of the Russian Union of Journalists (CJES) Central Asian and Southern Caucasus Freedom of Expression Netw ork (CASCFEN) Com m ittee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) Com m onw ealth Press Union (CPU) Cyber-Rights and Cyber-Liberties (UK) (cyber-rights.org) Czech Helsinki Com m ittee Derechos Hum an Rights Electronic Frontier Canada (EFC) Electronic Frontier Finland (EFFI) European Alliance of Press Agencies (EAPA) European Ethnic Broadcasting Association (EEBA) European Institute for the Media (EIM) Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) Fem inists for Free Expression (FFE) Freedom Forum Freedom House Glasnost Defence Foundation (GDF) Global Internet Liberty Cam paign (GILC) Greek Helsinki Monitor (GHM) Hum an Rights Centre of Azerbaijan (HRCA) Hum an Rights Watch (HRW) 312

M ED IA NGO S IN

THE

O SCE REGIO N

Independent Journalism Centre, Moldova (IJC) Index on Censorship International Centre for Journalists (ICFJ) International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) International Federation for Inform ation and Docum entation (FID) International Federation of the Periodical Press (IFPP) International Foundation for Protection of Freedom of Speech “ADIL SO Z” International Freedom of Expression eXchange (IFEX) International League for Hum an Rights (ILHR) International Press Institute (IPI) Internew s International IREX – Media Developm ent Division (IREX) Journalist Safety Service (JSS) Journalists’ Legal Environm ent Centre ERINA Journalists’ Trade Union (JuHI) Kuhi Nor Media Centre Belgrade Medienhilfe National Freedom of Inform ation Coalition (NFO IC) Norw egian Forum for Freedom of Expression (NFFE) Norw egian People’s Aid Media O ffice in Belgrade (NPA) O pen Society Institute Netw ork Media Program Soros Foundation (O SI/NMP) Press Now Progressive Journalists Association (Cagdas Gazeteciler dernegi) Reporters sans frontières (RSF) RUH Azerbaijani Com m ittee for Protection of Journalists (RUH) Statew atch The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) The Reporters Com m ittee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) Turkish Press Council (Basyn Konseyi) Wom en Journalists Association of Azerbaijan World Association of Com m unity Radio Broadcasters (AMARC) World Association of New spapers (WAN) World Press Freedom Com m ittee (WPFC) M ED IA NGO S IN

THE

O SCE REGIO N

313

Bo o ks Published by The O SCE Representative o n Freedo m o f the Media

Yearbo o ks Freedom and Responsibility. Yearbook Freedom and Responsibility. Yearbook Freedom and Responsibility. Yearbook Freedom and Responsibility. Yearbook Freedom and Responsibility. Yearbook

1998/1999. Vienna 1999/2000. Vienna 2000/2001. Vienna 2001/2002. Vienna 2002/2003. Vienna

1999 2000 (also in Russian) 2001 2002 (also in Russian) 2003

In D efence o f the Future Verteidigung der Z ukunft. Suche im verminten Gelände. Freim ut Duve und Nenad Popovic (Hg.), (Wien-Bozen: Folio Verlag, 1999) In Defence of the Future. Searching in the M inefield. Freim ut Duve and Nenad Popovic (eds.), (Vienna-Bolzano: Folio, 2000) Kaukasus – Verteidigung der Z ukunft. 24 Autoren auf der Suche nach Frieden.

Freim ut Duve und Heidi Tagliavini (Hg.), (Wien-Bozen: Folio Verlag, 2001) Caucasus – Defence of the Future: Twenty-four Writers in Search of Peace. Freim ut Duve und Heidi Tagliavini (eds.), (Vienna-Bolzano: Folio, 2001) Z ashchita budushego. Kavkaz v poinskah mira. Pod redaktsiei Fraim uta Duve i HaidiTal’iavini (Moscow : Glagol Publishing House, 2000)

Repo rts / Miscellaneo us Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, M acedonia (FY RO M ) and Kosovo.

International Assistance to M edia. Mark Thom pson (Vienna, 2000) U obranu N ase Buducnosti. Freim ut Duve (urednik), (Zagreb: Durieux, 2001) Freedom of Expression, Free Flow of Information, Freedom of M edia. CSCE/O SCE Main provisions 1975-2001 (English/Russian), (Vienna, n.d.)

Freedom of the M edia in Belarus. Public Workshop w ith Belarusian Journalists Vienna, 31 May 2001 (English/Russian), (Vienna, 2001) Ya shimau voinu... Shkola vizhivaniya, Yurii Rom anov, Prava Cheloveka (Moscow, 2001) From Q uill to Cursor: Freedom of the M edia in the Digital Era. Papers from the Workshop on Freedom of the Media and the Internet, Vienna, 30 Novem ber 2002 (Vienna, 2003) 314

BO O KS

The Spiegel Affair (Moscow : Glagol Publishing House, 2003) (only in Russian) Spreading the Word on the Internet. 16 Answers to 4 Q uestions. Reflections on Freedom of the Media and the Internet, Am sterdam Conference, June 2003.

Christiane Hardy and Christian Möller (eds.), (Vienna, 2003) M edia in M ultilingual Societies: Freedom and Responsibility. Ana Karlsreiter (ed.), (also in Serbian and soon in Albanian, Hungarian and Rom ani) (Vienna, 2003) The Impact of M edia Concentration on Professional Journalism. Johannes von Dohnanyi and Christian Möller (Vienna, 2003)

Central Asia M ass M edia in Central Asia: Present and Future. Second Regional Conference‚ Dushanbe 14-15 Novem ber 2000, Vienna 2001 Vtoraya regionalnaya conferentsiya ”Sredtstva massovoi informatsii Z etralnoi Azii: nastoyashee i budushee” Predstavitel O BSE po voprosam svobodi sredstv m assovoi inform atsii i m uissiya O BSE v Tadjikistane, Dushanbe, 14-15 Novem ber 2000 M edia Freedom in Times of Anti-Terrorist Conflict. Third Central Asian Media Conference, Alm aty, 10-11 Decem ber 2001 (English/Russian), (Vienna, 2002) The M edia Situation in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Five Country Reports (English/Russian), (Vienna, 2002) Freedom of the M edia and Corruption. Fourth Central Asian Media Conference, Tashkent, 26-27 Septem ber 2002, (English/Russian), (Vienna, 2003) Central Asia - In Defence of the Future. M edia in M ulticultural and M ultilingual Societies. Fifth Central Asian Media Conference, Bishkek 2003, (also in Russian), (Vienna, 2003).

mo bile.culture.co ntainer In Defence of our Future. Odbrana nase buducnosti. Verteidigung unserer Zukunft, n.d.

Verteidigung unserer Z ukunft.mobile.culture.container 2001. Freim ut Duve, Achim Koch (Hg.), (Vienna, 2002) Balkan – die Jugend nach dem Krieg. Verteidigung unserer Z ukunft.

Das Projekt mobile.culture.container. (Wien-Bozen: Folio, 2002) In Defence of our Future. mobile.culture.container M itrovicë/a.

Septem ber/O ctober 2002 (Mitrovicë/a, 2002) We Are Defending O ur Future. mobile.culture.container 2001-2003.

Freim ut Duve and Achim Koch (eds.), (Vienna, 2003) BO O KS

315

Autho rs Jo hannes vo n D o hnanyi – a Germ an-Am erican journalist w ho, for m ore than 25 years, has been w orking as a foreign and w ar correspondent for various new spapers, m agazines and TV broadcasters.

Von Dohnanyi w as born in 1952 in New Haven, Conn./USA. Upon finishing his university degrees in Econom ics and Political Sciences he w as posted in Italy, South East Asia, the Balkans and Brussels.

Milo D o r – born in Budapest, the son of a Serbian doctor. He spent his youth in Belgrade, w here in 1942, after the occupation of Belgrade, he w as arrested as a Resistance fighter, tortured and finally deported to Vienna. He stayed on in Vienna after the w ar, and becam e active as a w riter, publisher and journalist. His publications include num erous novels, novellas, anthologies (Shots from Sarajevo, The Raikov Saga) and translations of Serbian poetry. Since the disintegration of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Dor has published the collection of essays, Farewell, Yugoslavia (1993) and released the anthology, To Err is Human and Patriotic: Serbian Aphorisms from the War (1994), in w hich he focuses on the cruelties of the civil w ar, and propounds a m essage of peace and hum anity. Milo Dor has been the recipient of num erous literary prizes.

Freimut D uve – a Germ an politician, hum an rights activist, w riter and journalist w as elected the O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media by the O SCE Ministerial Council in Decem ber 1997. Duve w as born in 1936 in Würzburg and received his education in Modern History, Sociology, Political Science and English Literature at the University of Ham burg. He w orked as an editor at the Row ohlt publishing house and w as a Social Dem ocratic m em ber of the Bundestag (Germ an Parliam ent) from 1980 to 1998, representing his city, Ham burg.

Jacqueline Go dany – a freelance photojournalist and w riter living and w orking in Vienna. She is editor of the illustrated book Sintflut, Czernin Verlag, 2003, and is one of the authors of Wollen täten’s schon dürfen, Deuticke Verlag, 2003, published by Hans-Peter Martin. She has been w orking for the new s agency Reuters, the Austrian Press Agency and various m agazines and new spapers. She has been m onitoring the changes in the w orking conditions for journalists for about tw o years.

AUTHO RS

317

Christiane Hardy – studied in the USA and at the University of Heidelberg, Germ any. She w as a publisher at Van Gennep and Q uerido’s publishing in Am sterdam . She joined the O ffice of the Representative on Freedom of the Media as a senior adviser in 2002.

Jaap de Ho o p Scheffer – Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands and Chairm an-in-O ffice of the O SCE 2003. From January 2004 he w ill be Secretary General of NATO .

Alexander Ivanko – a form er Russian journalist w ho w orked for the daily Izvestia, a leading Moscow new spaper, from 1984 to 1994.

From 1994 to 1998 he w as posted as the United Nations Spokesm an in Bosnia and Herzegovina. He joined the O ffice of the O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media as an adviser in O ctober 1998.

Andrey Kalikh – program m e m anager at the Center for the Developm ent of Dem ocracy and Hum an Rights in Moscow. He studied Political History and Econom ics at Perm University. From 1995 to 2001 Kalikh w as program m e m anager at the hum an rights foundation Mem orial in the Ural NGO support centre in Perm . In 2002 he w as project m anager at the Germ an-Russian Exchange Society in Berlin. From 2002 to 2003 he w as an intern in the O ffice of the O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media.

Ana Karlsreiter – holds a Ph.D. in Political Sciences, History of South and South-East Europe and Slavic Philology from Ludw igM axim ilian s-Un iversity, M un ich Germ an y. Sh e is curren tly a research officer at the O ffice of the O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media.

Hans J. Kleinsteuber – professor of Political Science/Com parative Governm ent and Journalism at Ham burg University since 1982. He is head of the Research Centre for Media and Politics at the Institute for Political Science. Prof. Kleinsteuber is a m em ber of the group “Cyberdem ocracy” in CO ST A 14/EU and curator of the association ‹politik-digital.de/europa-digital.de›. His recent publications include: Information Superhighway in the US (1996); Information Highway in Hamburg (1997); and Recent Trends in US-M edia (2001).

Achim Ko ch – w as a teacher, stage m anager and designer, and a com m ercial and technical director of international dance and theatre festivals. He w as executive director of the Defence of our Future fund that organized the m obile.culture.container project until July 2003.

318

AUTHO RS

Christian Mö ller – a project assistant in the O ffice of the O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media. Before that he had w orked from 1999 for the Unabhängige Landesanstalt für das Rundfunkwesen (ULR) in Kiel, one of Germ any’s federal m edia authorities. He holds an M.A. in Media Studies, Germ an Language and Public Law from Christian Albrechts University, Kiel and is currently w orking on his doctoral thesis on the effects of technical innovation on freedom of expression on the Internet.

Felipe Ro driquez – founded XS4ALL in 1993, and acted as its CEO until 1997. He also founded the Dutch ISP association in 1995, and acted as its chair until 1997. He has been at the centre of the legal debate over censorship and Internet service provider issues in Europe and the w orld. He currently w orks as a board m em ber for a num ber of com panies and organizations.

Karin Spaink – a freelance w riter w ho has published eight books and hundreds of articles and new spaper colum ns. Her m ain subjects are inform ation technology, politics, health, and language. She is on the board of various freedom of speech and civil liberties organizations.

Som e of her w ork can be found at ‹http://w w w.spaink.net›. Spaink w as an external adviser for the O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media on Internet m atters in 2002-2003.

Hanna Vuo kko – a hum an rights and international law expert w ith postgraduate degrees from universities in Finland and the USA. She has w orked as the Hum an Dim ension O fficer at the O SCE Mission to Ukraine in Crim ea and taught hum an rights and hum anitarian law at Åbo Akadem i University in Finland. She joined the O ffice of the Representative on Freedom of the Media in July 1999.

Jutta Wo lke – a senior diplom at in the Germ an Foreign Service. She studied in Münster (Germ any), Bristol (England), William sburg, Virginia (USA), Bologna (Italy) and Washington D.C. and has an M.A.I.A (Arts and International Affairs) from the Johns Hopkins University’s Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies. She joined the O ffice of the O SCE Representative on Freedom of the Media in August 2001.

AUTHO RS

319

Johannes von Dohnanyi Milo Dor Freim ut Duve Jacqueline Godany Christiane Hardy Jaap de Hoop Scheffer Alexander Ivanko Andrey Kalikh Ana Karlsreiter Hans J. Kleinsteuber Achim Koch Christian Mรถller Felipe Rodriquez Karin Spaink Hanna Vuokko Jutta Wolke

w w w.osce.org/ fom