Drug cartels divide the Mexican press
Following Mexican newspaper El Diario’s front-page appeal this week, Ana Arana explains why journalists in Mexico remain split over whether to negotiate with drug cartels
(more…)
Drug cartels divide the Mexican press
“What do you want from us?”, El Diario de Juarez asked the two drug cartels fighting for control of Ciudad Juarez, one of the most important cities on the US-Mexico border. The front page editorial was a bold public display of the type of questions provincial journalists ask themselves every day when they are attacked by drug cartels. El Diario is the second largest newspaper in this border town, which was an industrial megacity, until it was brought to a halt by the drug war three years ago. The daily newspaper’s editorial came after two of its intern photographers were shot by gunmen, the attack left one dead and the other wounded. The attack was confusing as the two young journalists had recently started their positions. It was the second murder of a journalist working for El Diario in the last two years.
The editorial sparked a diatribe from the Mexican government. Government spokesman Alejandro Poire attacked the newspaper for promoting illegal accords with organised crime.
To make matters worse for the El Diario, it was fooled on Monday by an impostor pretending to be Cesar Nava, the head of the ruling Partido de Accion Nacional (PAN), who said he supported negotiating an end to violence with organised crime.
In Mexico, as in most of Latin America, most of the attacks against journalists occur in provincial cities, where they often go unpunished. Regional media organisations are often small, because they are not as powerful as the national media they are attacked with impunity. There is often an underlying mistrust between these two types of media — the provincial news outlets pay lower salaries and their journalists get less training. In some cases journalists hold multiple jobs, which can pose conflicts of interest.
Until recently, the divide between the Mexican provincial press and the press in the Distrito Federal, as Mexico’s capital city is called, was huge. Attacks against journalists in Mexico have been common for more than 20 years ago, but they often occurred on border cities. Although the divide has narrowed recently — especially since the kidnapping of four journalists including a national Televisa cameraman last July — there is still a significant gap.
In recent interviews I have held with provincial editors, they say they still fee “abandoned” by their colleagues in Mexico City. “Some of our colleagues in [the city] feel we are giving in too quickly,” said one editor in Veracruz, “but the truth is they do not know the dangers we face.” Carlos Marin, of the national daily Milenio, scalded El Diario in a column yesterday, calling for the newspaper to close its doors, rather than capitulate before organised crime. Some Mexico City based editors are more willing to understand the plight of the provincial media. Denise Maerker, a columnist and Televisa presenter, said that El Diario de Juarez’s question to drug cartels last week was simply a public display of what is happening across Mexico. In her column in yesterday’s El Universal, she said that these pacts have been going on silently in the country. “Let’s not leave them alone”, she implored.
The issue underlying the entire debate over El Diario’s decision is the reality that more people in Mexico are questioning the drug war and are debating whether Mexico should negotiate with the drug cartels.
Uganda: Police to vet public gatherings
Kampala metropolitan police chief Andrew Sorowen announced on 20 September that public gatherings involving more than five people must be cleared by the Inspector General of Police (IGP). He added that the measure also applied to wedding receptions and funerals, citing the threat of terrorism as justification. Police deputy spokesperson Vincent Sekatte later said that official clearance was not required for private assemblies, but advised citizens wishing to hold such events to inform the IGP first. The new guidelines come amidst outrage at the government’s proposed Public Order Management Bill, which would require organisers of rallies and demonstrations to obtain approval from the police.
Kaya Genç: Hrant Dink, a misinterpreted peacemaker
This is a guest post by Kaya Genç
“Finally now I am appealing to the European Court of Human Rights,” Hrant Dink wrote in his last article for Agos, the newspaper he had edited since 1996. “I don’t know how many years this case will take. But at least I am relieved by the fact that until the end of this case I’ll continue living in Turkey. I’ll be happy, no doubt, if the court’s verdict is positive – this will mean that I will never have to leave my country again.” On 19 January 2007, a week after the article appeared, Hrant Dink was assassinated outside his newspaper. Last week’s decision from the European Court of Human Rights (which condemned Turkey for failing to protect Dink’s life or conduct a proper investigation into his murder, and ordered it to pay Dink’s family 105,000 euros in compensation) may seem like good news, but it is not quite the birthday present the Turkish state apparatus would like it to appear.
Turkish officials announced that they would not appeal to the Grand Chamber of the Court and that they would immediately accept the verdict, which was announced on Dink’s birthday. Yet rather than being the sincere and democratic impulse of the Erdoğan government, the state’s response actually appears to be the afterthought of a criminal – aiming to divert attention from the defence Turkey presented to the court.
Defending the decision of the local court (which found Dink guilty of insulting “Turkishness”, following Article 301 of the penal code), the Turkish state defended itself in the European Court of Human Rights by comparing Hrant Dink to “leaders of national socialism in Germany”.
“In democratic societies,” the Turkish defence read, “the sort of articles that are similar to Dink’s amount to crimes of provocation and they are a danger to public order.” Turkey’s official defence then reminded the court that the European Council had agreed to the suppression of “hate speech”. The defence also noted that it was the same court that had found the leader of a Nazi organisation guilty, because of an article that advocated national socialism. “Dink’s article, also, amounts to ‘hate speech,’” the defence concluded.
When news of the government’s defence made headlines last August, supporters of the governing AKP were shocked by the realisation that there was in fact no real distinction between the bureaucratic, nationalist old guard of the system and the neo-liberal AKP government, whose economic “shock doctrine” they had so vigorously defended.
When Turkey’s defence became public, the Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu found himself in a very uncomfortable position. The day after the press coverage, he told reporters “I cannot accept this. I believe we can have an agreement with Dink’s family.” Davutoğlu assured the family that the state would not defend its current position and would not appeal if the court ruled against Turkey.
But neither Davutoğlu nor the Turkish President Abdullah Gül, who met Hrant’s brother Hosrof to express his sympathies, seem to be concerned with a fundamental issue in the Dink case – the role of the state apparatus, under the rule of AKP, in helping to foster the climate that led to Dink’s murder. Dink had never been sympathetic to the right-wing agenda of the Armenian diaspora and the article he wrote in 2004 about Turks and Armenians, that famously antagonised his enemies and led to his prosecution, was misinterpreted: it was actually a criticism of Armenian hardliners and not Turks. When Dink wrote that “the purified blood that will replace the blood poisoned by the ‘Turk’ can be found in the noble vein linking Armenians to Armenia, provided that the former are aware of it,” he was urging the Armenian authorities to be more active in strengthening ties with the country’s diaspora, as a basis for a healthier national identity. As a socialist, Dink was irritated by what he called “the English-French alliance” and “imperialist forces” that had historically been motivated by self-interest, causing humanitarian catastrophes in countries like Turkey. Arguing against the right-wing members of the diaspora in the US, Dink wanted Armenian people to get rid of “the blood poisoned by the ‘Turk’” – meaning the hatred against the Turk.
Only a Turkish or an Armenian racist could have a problem with this sentence, and they both did. Dink’s sentence was deliberately misinterpreted in an effort to represent the socialist, anti-imperialist editor as an imperialist who defended the religious and capitalist demands of the Armenians. Perhaps this misinterpretation served right-wingers in Armenia as well as in Turkey. Perhaps it was a useful campaign, eventually destroying a socialist voice demanding a just peace.
Happily, there are Turkish intellectuals who are not afraid of criticising the state apparatus. One such figure is Rıza Türmen, a former judge at the ECHR, who advised the state to admit its mistake instead of defending it. “It is not necessary to defend every case. Sometimes it might be better for the state in moral and legal terms to admit a mistake instead of clinging to a defence. If this case is bothering the government that much, they could conclude the case before it is decided,” he wrote in his column in the daily Milliyet.
The court’s decision coincides with the publication of the first biography of Dink. Entitled “Hrant”, the book was written by the journalist Tûba Çandar, who worked on it for more than three years, interviewing 125 people, including Dink’s family members, close and distant relatives, his university friends and colleagues. The first edition of the book is on the way to becoming a bestseller.
I asked the writer Maureen Freely, who has already translated excerpts into English, about the decision and Turkey’s defence. “I hate the distortions of the government and I also hate seeing how effective they are abroad,” she says. “I hope with this decision that they will begin to understand that they should stop this, for this sort of defence is an anti-democratic insult to the people of Turkey.”
Kaya Genç is a novelist and journalist. You can read his article about Kurdish musicians in the latest issue of award-winning Index on Censorship magazine, Smashed Hits 2.0, by subscribing to the magazine or buying a single issue on Amazon. Listen to Kaya’s playlist choices of Kurdish music on iTunes and Spotify