Newsletters

March 11, 2005

NEWSLETTER OF THE WORLD PRESS FREEDOM COMMITTEE
FOR ITS AFFILIATES AND CONTRIBUTORS
AND OTHER MEDIA LEADERS

On the eve of the Second Session of the WSIS scheduled for November 2005, the World Press Freedom Committee and other free-expression advocates voiced pointed questions about the propriety of convening a global summit on communication in Tunisia, a country where censorship is pervasive.

WPFC Executive Director Mark Bench and representatives of 12 other or­gani­za­tions comprising the International Freedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX) Tunisia Monitoring Group issued a 60-page report following a Jan. 14-19 fact-finding trip to Tunisia. (Bench’s observations on the mission are attached as Appendix 1).

Findings include: pervasive press censorship, website blocking, harass­ment of human rights activists and lack of diversity in media ownership. “Tuni­sia must greatly improve its implementation of internationally agreed freedom of expression and other human rights standards if it is to hold the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Tunis in November 2005,” the report said.

Tunisia responded to the report with heated denials, claiming that access to the Internet there is free; freedom to write and publish is guaranteed; and the Tunisian press is “free and pluralistic.”  The Tunisian govern­ment claims to subsidize heavily all opposition newspapers, fueling the argument that where there’s financing, there’s control.

*  *  *

Working documents drawn up in preparation for Part II of the United Nations-sponsored WSIS lack critical emphasis on the importance of the media and press freedom, according to journalist observers.

Texts prepared for the Tunis Summit “make only a passing and ambiguous reference to the central place of the media in that Information Society,” members of the Media Caucus said in a Feb. 25 statement to WSIS organiz­ers in Geneva. The caucus declared all United Nations members are commit­ted to the free expression provisions of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. “They must all now honor those commitments. If they do not, then tomorrow’s Information Society will prove to be an empty shell.” (WPFC’s Ronald Koven’s Media Caucus Statement to WSIS Feb. 25 PrepCom is attached as Appendix 2).

*  *  *

Specific Concerns Expressed by the Members of IFEX Tunisian Monitoring Mission:

The mission found specific reasons for continuing concern in the following areas:

1.  Blocking of websites;

2.  Blocking of the distribution of books and publications;

3.  Restrictions on the freedom of association, including the right of organizations to be legally established and to hold meetings;

4.  Restrictions on movement of human rights activists together with police surveillance, intimidation and interception of communications;

5.  Lack of pluralism in broadcast ownership with only one private radio station and one private television station on the air;

6.  Press and book censorship and lack of diversity of content in newspapers; 

7.  Imprisonment of individuals for their opinions and media activities. 

The mission’s findings do little to assuage concerns that the Summit will not take place in a climate that will be fully inclusive of the range of opinions in Tunisia.  That the respect for freedom of information and expression, absolutely essential to the function of the Information Society are far from respected in the Summit’s host country is deeply concerning.  

President Ben Ali of Tunisia has expressed that the international commu­nity’s selection of Tunis as the site for the second WSIS summit demon­strates universal acceptance of his policies.  This is farcical, as WPFC and the global Coordinating Committee of Press Freedom Organizations have stated that unless Tunisia radically changes its attitude toward the press and freedom of expression, the WSIS summit should be either cancelled or moved to a country that respects press freedom.  

Tunisia is far from meeting its stated commitments to the right of freedom of expression as guaranteed under Article 19 of the 1948 Universal Declara­tion of Human Rights.  

The six NGO members of the mission to Tunisia in January met with Tunisian writers, publishers, editors, journalists, human rights defenders, academ­ics, as well as government representatives. The mission members found Tunisian media displayed a distinct lack of diversity of tone and lack of criticism of government policies.

*  *  *

An international debate is growing over whether news, books, music, works of art and other items are matters of culture, or of world trade. 

The issue, often defined within the term “cultural diversity,” is looming as a major topic at UNESCO’s General Conference this fall, promising to generate vigorous discussion over whether given materials “culture” or “goods and services,” and whether they fall under headings of free expression or of trade agreements.

A major argument for controls of news in past debates has been a claimed need to ensure that news reports not offend anyone’s self-defined “cultural values.”  

France and Canada are among the 190 members of UNESCO pushing for adoption of a legally binding “Convention on the Protection of the Diversity of Cultural Contents and Artistic Expression,” arguing that such a document is needed to protect their cultures from outside competition and noting that a disproportionate amount of American TV, literary material and media finds its way into their countries. 

The United States is among states questioning the need for such a conven­tion, warning that it could result in curtailment of free expression and violation of already negotiated trade agreements. The proposed convention “commercializes” culture, and threatens to result in government restric­tions on materials coming into a country.

“Goods and services with substantial cultural elements are not the same as culture,” according to the U.S. position. “A convention aimed at ‘rebalanc­ing’ or controlling cultural and artistic expressions is not consistent with respect for human rights or the free flow of information.”

*  *  *

 Arab Journalists Form Defense Committee

Arab Journalists based in Doha, Qatar, have chosen imprisoned Al-Jazeera reporter Taysir Alooni to head a new organization designed to protect journalists and monitor government actions. Group members say they will challenge restrictions on media in the Arab world, help improve media laws and get colleagues released from prison.

Alooni is imprisoned in Spain, where authorities charge he has links to al-Quaeda. The newly formed Arab Committee to Defend Journalists is demanding his release.

*  *  *

 African Leaders Urged to Ensure Press Freedom

The World Press Freedom Committee and other freedom of expression groups have urged United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan to press the African Union to include press freedom as one of the requirements of good govern­ance.

The AU’s new “peer review mechanism” on good governance fails to include mention of the importance of free and independent news media - an omission press freedom advocates say encourages repression. 

Examples cited include recent punishment of Gambian media on charges of criminal defamation, development of a restrictive press law in Ethiopia, requirements in Somalia for registration of media outlets and continuing actions by Zimbabwe against local and international journalists and media.

In a letter dated February 1, the press freedom groups urged Annan to “speak out strongly against countries failing to live up to their freedom of expression commitments.” They also suggested that he “point out how inappropriate it is” for nations where censorship thrives to host offices of the African Union. AU headquarters are in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights is located in Banjul, Gambia.

*  *  * 

Zimbabwe’s Jonathan Moyo Gets Pink Slip

Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe fired Information Minister Jonathan Moyo on Feb. 20, also expelling him from parliament and the ruling party. Once Mugabe’s fiercest defender, Moyo became an opponent, accused of plotting against Mugabe’s vice president. As information minister he forced all foreign correspondents to leave the country and masterminded drafting of a repressive media law requiring local journalists to register with a state media commission or go to jail for two years.

*  *  *

The World Press Freedom Committee has expressed concern over the Zambian government’s rejection of a High Court ruling validating the autonomy of the country’s Independent Broadcasting Authority. WPFC also criticized the Information Ministry for canceling the construction license of Omega Television. 

“As a government that claims to uphold constitutionality and the rule of law, it follows that curtailing the right to communicate is not only anathema but truly illegal,” WPFC Executive Director Mark Bench said in a Jan. 18 letter to Zambian President Levy Patrick Mwanawasa.  

*  *  *

Press freedom and human rights organizations are weighing in on primary themes under discussion by the Council of Europe’s March ministerial conference on media policy in Kiev, Ukraine.

The World Press Freedom Committee is among a number of free media advocates taking part in a special forum prior to the ministerial meetings, providing commentary and insights on the conference’s main themes: the role of the media in times of crisis; promoting media pluralism and cultural diversity in the face of globalization; and defending human rights in the “Informa­tion Society.”

Among the topics to be discussed at this meeting that have the potential to be “toxic” are

           --interference with the work of journalists in [times of crisis] must remain exceptional and be strictly in line with ...international human rights instruments.

           --the importance of the media in promoting understanding and toler­ance and thus in preventing conflict situations.

            --the new communication services industry...self-regulatory or co-regulatory measures.

            --particular care on behalf of content producers and disseminators, notably in order not to harm human dignity and the rights of individuals especially minors.

            --co-operation to minimise the risks...of the dissemination of harmful content on the new communication services.

            --liability for content made available to the public on the Internet, and if necessary...the preparation of guidelines on the roles and respon­si­bilities of intermediaries and other Internet actors in ensuring freedom of expression. 

Who decides what is harmful?  Who judges?  Who assigns roles to the media and journalists?  Is self-regulation self-censorship? 

*  *  *

UNESCO officials stressed press freedom concerns in a series of speeches to the second Preparatory Conference of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Geneva in February.

Abdul Waheed Khan, UNESCO’s Assistant Director General for communication and Information, restated UNESCO’s position on a delicate issue before WSIS: “Internet governance should not be a pretext to regulate Internet content and of news and opinion,” he said. “Security considerations and the demands of the battle against crime, including terrorism, should not imperil freedom of expression and press freedom.”

*  *  *

Yes, the International Telecommunication Union, host and sponsor of the World Summit on the Information Society, is taking contributions.

Budget for Part II of the WSIS, scheduled for Nov. 16-18 in Tunis, is approximately $13 million, which was not provided in the General Assembly resolution (56/183) endorsing Summit preparation. 

Instead, the GA set up an ITU-run trust fund to support the Summit. ITU has called on governments, private donors and other “stakeholders” to come up with $4.3 million, counting on the balance to come in as in-kind contri­butions such as professional expertise.  Contributions so far total a little more than half that amount, coming from sources such as: Azerbaijan ($13,048), Burkina Faso ($21,475), Canada ($85,884), Finland ($154,576), France ($128,826), Germany ($64,785), the Holy See ($3,436), Libya ($51,537), Saudi Arabia ($288,024), Sweden ($287,752) and Trinidad and Tobago ($5,153). Japan is the largest contributor so far, having given $667,271. The United States is not listed among donors.

ITU Secretary-General Yoshio Utsumi invites contributors to contact wsis-fund@itu.int for information on how to give.

*  *  *

Alberto Ibargüen, publisher of The Miami Herald since 1998, will take over leadership of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation upon the retire­ment of Hodding Carter III, who has been the foundation’s president and chief operating executive since Feb. 1, 1998. Before becoming publisher of the Herald, Ibargüen was publisher of its Spanish-language sister paper, El Nuevo Herald. He is a director of the Inter American Press Association, a close ally in the World Press Freedom Committee’s efforts to promote press freedom in the Americas.

The Knight Foundation, with assets of $1.9 billion, has been an important supporter of WPFC for more than 25 years.

 *  *  *

ON THE SHORT SIDE...A new Brazilian press freedom network--the Red de De­fensa de Libertad de Prensa--plans to promote the concept of press free­dom while providing information on restrictions in Brazil....Xinhua, China’s official news agency, reports that the state shut down 12,000 Internet bars in 2004, to “create a safer environment for young people”....WPFC Executive Director Mark Bench has been asked to chair the U.S. National Commission on UNESCO’s Committee on Communication and Information.

#

Appendix 1

Mission to Tunis Was an ‘Eye Opener’

World Press Freedom Committee Executive Director Mark Bench was among leaders of several international non-governmental freedom of expression groups to visit Tunis, Tunisia in advance of the World Summit on the Information Society, Part II, scheduled for November 16-18 in Tunis. Here are his informal observations of the January mission:

We interviewed some 25 NGO leaders, in areas such as human rights, free press/expression, anti-torture, etc.  It was a major eye opener.

We’d advised the Tunisian embassy of our plans, and asked them to assist with some government contacts there.  Instead, they asked me via daily phone calls from the embassy personnel to please postpone the trip for at least two weeks as this was the season when all government personnel were out of town on vacation.  I told them that that was impossible as we all held non-refundable tickets, and that our schedules were now set, virtually impossible to change.  They kept calling, daily, to get us to postpone.  Finally, when they realized it wasn’t going to happen, and the day before I left, they called to advise me to ignore the last email (postpone­ment plea/demand), that I was indeed welcome in Tunisia, and that I would be met at the airport by a govern­ment representative who would give me a list of government personnel and related [GONGOS] organizations for us to meet.  I explained that we had a very full schedule already set (since there’d been no help from them), and that we’d try to see some of them.  I also explained that subsequent trips would occur, and perhaps they could meet with some of their recommended groups--which included the journalist union suspended by the Interna­tional Press Institute for having given a free press award to Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. 

We met with Amnesty International, among other groups.  Amnesty’s lawyer expressed his gratitude for our visit, as on the day we arrived their website was unblocked within their country.  

One of our members took software with him that analyzes blocked websites.  

We had time, at the very end, for us to visit two government offices.  The first was the technological area where their leader was new, and a real diplomat!  He said that blocked websites are not his area, but he’d look into it.  There are some 14 ISPs in the country, and if any one of them decides that the content of any website may corrupt morals or harm the country, its owner has the right to block that site. 

The other office visited was an agency of the Exterior Ministry.  This chap told us that there was complete freedom of expression and publication in his country.  I said that when 13,000 communica­tions experts arrive in his country and look at the daily newspapers as I’d been doing, they would all laugh at the irony of it all:  the very same photo of the president every day (selected, we’re told, by the president himself), anti-American news on the front page, and “everything’s wonderful in Tunisia” on the inside.  I explained that if one wakes up blue in Tunisia, all he has to do is read the paper and he’ll feel grand!  

I tried to explain that we’re not nearly so much interested in the press environment during WSIS II as we are about what happens following the summit.  

As it stands, no organization is authorized to hold a meeting unless its charter has been approved by the Interior Ministry.  A receipt is given when the charter is presented to a certain office at the ministry, and if in three months the ministry has not told the leaders of the organization why they cannot become legal, then you’re legal.

However, only two organizations have been authorized since 1989. Since the ministry organizes the interception of phone messages of “illegal organizations,’’ they know when the organization is coming to the office to present the charter, and the office is always empty when these organizations arrive.  One older gentleman went, determined to wait until someone came.  He was physically removed, jailed and tortured (this reported to us personally).  

You have the freedom in Tunisia to write a book.  You take the book (pamphlet, report, whatever) to a publisher, and he prints it.  Prior to its being circulated or sold, two copies must be sent to the “depo legal,” which means that the Interior Ministry has the authority to block its distribu­tion/sale.  And when these books come from any of the “illegal” organizations, forget about it!  

One well-known Tunisian university professor endeavored to bring along a copy of Pope Paul’s Catholic Catechism as he entered the country, but was not allowed to bring it into the country. 

Another woman, a member of an “illegal organization,” was visiting France and wrote a satirical piece, pub­lished in France, indicating that Ben Ali’s elegant portrait everywhere visible throughout offices, homes, etc., has a “big brother” effect.  When she returned to Tunisia she was arrested, not for the article, of course (every­one has freedom in Tunisia), but because she’d brought 120 euros into the country, and that’s illegal.  She was given a suspended sentence of eight months in jail, and is now a convicted felon.  

We met with NGO activist Sihem Bensedrine of the “illegal” National Council for Tunisian Freedom in her home, where she’d scheduled a meeting with her members about two hours prior to our arrival.  The organiza­tional meeting could not be held, as some 70 plain-clothed police thugs blocked the entrance.  By the time we’d arrived, there were about 20 of them still milling around, but they didn’t dare bar our entry.  After all, there’s complete freedom in that country.  I have a photo on disc of the plain-clothes police thugs blocking the entrance. 

When one of her members arrived late to her “clandestine” meeting, he went to a nearby cafe and called on his cell phone to say that he couldn’t get in.  She said that she knew that, and that he ought to do nothing, but to quietly return to his home and cause no problems.  Not two minutes later, one of the police thugs approached the member in the cafe and said that he ought to do as he was instructed by his leader -- return to his home quietly, not cause any problems.  This is evidence again of phone taps.  

We were followed virtually everywhere we went.  When a member of our delegation attempted to take a picture of our thug-followers, they scampered.  His hands were shaking when he returned with no picture!  When he and an associate took a cab to the British Embassy, they got very lost.  A black Fiat followed them the entire trip, the turning-arounds, the twisting and turning.  He couldn’t believe it!  He took down its license plate to provide factual back-up.  He called the police vehicle Fiat 77.  

#
 

 Appendix 2

Statement to World Summit on the Information Society II Preparatory Committee

By Ronald Koven, WPFC European Representative, on behalf of the Media Caucus

GENEVA (25 February 2005) -- The members of the Media Caucus, including Northern and Southern journalists of both the industrialized and developing worlds, have expressed their deep concern that the texts currently under consideration for the second phase of the World Summit on the Information Society make only a passing and ambiguous reference to the central place of the media in that Information Society.

We hold strongly that Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights must be reaffirmed.  Not only that, we concur in the statement by African and Arab and international journalists groups in their recent Declaration of Marrakech -- held under the aegis of UNESCO and the Kingdom of Morocco -- that “The time has come to move from the promise of Article 19 to its universal implementation.”

We recall that Article 19 states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media, and regardless of frontiers.” 

The member states of the United Nations are all committed to those fine words.  They must all now honor those commitments.  If they do not, then tomorrow’s Information Society will prove to be an empty shell.

This December’s catastrophic tsunami illustrated that, to be effective, international solidarity requires an immediate and truly free flow of information.  The same principle applies to longer term development.  There can be information without development, but there cannot be effective development without full and free information.

There has been widespread impunity for the targeting of journalists working to inform the public, even though parties to conflicts have been made aware that journalists enjoy the same legal protections as other civilians, under Article 79 of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions.  The safety of journalists may be improved if those who attack them know that they may be prosecuted.  The Geneva Conventions have established an International Fact-Finding Commission to investigate alleged violations.  We call upon the international community to activate the Commission to investigate and expose those responsible for deliberate killings of journalists and media staff in conflicts and other violations against freedom of the press.

Journalists and their outlets in the North and the South must have the same opportunities to transmit their news and comments.  That is a large part of what overcoming the digital divide is all about.  There must be no gender discrimination.

It is also important that there be no legal bars for anyone to practice journalism freely, on or offline.  Access to publicly held information must be provided to all on an equal basis, including for persons with disabilities who need special accessible formats.  Any exceptions to the general rule that such information is publicly available must be precise, narrow and clearly legitimate in the public interest.

And the world of journalism must be given its rightful place at the table to discuss the future information society.  It is both bizarre and unjust that the Working Group on Internet Governance does not number a single journalist.  Consideration of communication without communicators is like talking about farming without consulting farmers.  In the words of the Marrakech Declaration, “Representatives of the media must be involved as full partners in any future Internet governance system.”

Nor must “governance” be allowed to become a code word for government regulation of Internet content.  The system must not be reorganized to permit this internationally nor to encourage it nationally.  Any changes to the Internet governance system should not involve controls over content, nor modifications of the Internet’s technical “architecture” that facilitate or permit censorship of news or opinion.  Nor should “self-regulation” be allowed to become a surrogate for governmental regulation of content on the Internet.

Security concerns must not serve as pretexts to limit freedom of expression in cyberspace.  Nor should considerations of “ethics” be allowed to become a veiled way to justify censorship.  The creation of ethical norms is the sole responsibility of media workers themselves. 

On a practical note, Internet Service Providers should not be held liable for the content of the messages they carry.  The installation of filtering systems must be an individual choice, not something imposed by authorities.

The determination of what constitutes illegal content subject to punishment must be left in the hands of independent courts administering laws that derive their legitimacy from universally accepted norms.

Any alleged offense committed on the Internet should normally be tried under the laws of and in the country where it originated, except for very clear and well-defined special circumstances, like explicit and credible calls for violence elsewhere.

Public and private aid providers and grantors should insist that there be freedom of expression and press freedom when they fund programs and projects to help media and to overcome the digital divide.

And, finally the general principle applied to cyberspace should be that the Internet and other new media forms should be afforded the same freedom of expression protections as traditional media.

#