Azerbaijan – Remembering a brave journalist

Last Tuesday was exactly five years since the threats hanging over  the head of Azerbaijan’s popular investigative journalist Elmar Huseynov were finally carried out. The 38-year-old Huseynov, founder and chief editor of the weekly journal Monitor, was shot seven times with a silenced pistol in the stairwell of his apartment in capital Baku.

Enquiries into the death of the famous journalist have been condemned as vague and half-hearted — with neither the hit man nor those behind the killing ever brought to trial. The investigation remains unproductive five years after the tragedy, so few Azerbaijanis believe the case will ever be solved. Huseynov’s colleagues and human rights watchdogs say the death was politically motivated and had been contracted to silence his work. The assassination was a decisive slap in the face to an already curtailed media.

Huseynov was the most prominent and outspoken among the few Azerbaijani journalists who dared to write investigative articles. He revealed embedded corruption, lawlessness and power abuse, often involving high-ranking members of the government and close associates of the president.

Monitor stood out from much of the mainstream Azerbaijan media, which continues to remain under total state control. Husneyov also founded the Bakinskiy Bulvar and Bakinskie Vedomosty newspapers, which were known for critical reporting and hard-hitting commentary. Few journalists in the Caucuses are willing to cover politically sensitive topics but Huseynov produced numerous investigative articles at great personal risk, receiving death threats and heavy fines.

The Azerbaijani authorities constantly harassed Huseynov. He faced scores of politicised lawsuits — that could result in imprisonment and / or hefty libel fines —  dozens of threats and bribes, all aimed at stopping his work. On many occasions, the authorities attempted to close down businesses that printed Monitor and confiscated copies of the journal from newsstands. The government repeatedly charged him with defaming the Azerbaijani population, insulting the honour and dignity of government officials, and spreading libellous information.

But this intimidations and harassments did not discourage Huseynov. In one of his interviews, he likened his way of journalism to “guerrilla fighting”. He never shied away from personal risks. He was courageous and tough on the government’s record on human rights abuses.

The assassination of Elmar Huseynov on 2 March 2005 led to international demands for an honest investigation to bring the killers to justice. Then Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Terry Davis, said, “I am shocked by the brutal murder of Elmar Huseynov, which has all the hallmarks of a contract killing and I condemn it in strongest terms”.

The Azerbaijani authorities were quick to deny that the government was connected to this vicious crime. President Ilham Aliyev called the murder a “black spot” on the country’s international image. He assured the family, colleagues and public at large that justice would be done. The death was designated as “terror act” and the investigation mandate was later transferred from the Office of Prosecutor General to the Ministry of the National Security (MNS). Although two ethnic Azerbaijani citizens of Georgia — Tahir Khubanov and Teymuraz Aliyev — were declared to be the prime suspects, their photos and information on their alleged roles are still classified. Georgia refuses to extradite the two men back to Azerbaijan.

Today, the official investigation remains stalled. With the killers at large and no clear evidence of who actually ordered the death, Elmar’s widow Rushana speculates that someone from the government ordered the assassination of her husband. When she published her suspicions she received death threats. Rushana, with her young son, is now a political migrant in Norway.

Azerbaijan continues to record a downtrend trajectory in international freedom indexes, with Reporters Sans Frontiers ranking Azerbaijan 146th out of 175 countries. The state-orchestrated media crackdown ensured that Azerbaijan lags well behind the other two states in Southern Caucasus – Georgia and Armenia. Amnesty International said the opposition journalists in Azerbaijan are “increasingly living under the threat of politically motivated arrests, physical assault and even death”.

The authorities expanded a crackdown on media in early 2009 by banning Azeri language service of the Radio Liberty, Voice of America and BBC radios in local frequencies. These radio outlets were the only stations offering a range of political views, dissenting voices and alternative information to the Azerbaijan society. At present, Eynulla Fatullayev and Ganimat Zahid, chief editors of country’s two prominent opposition papers are kept behind the bars on politically-motivated charges. The arrest of Emin Milli and Adnan Hajizade, two well-known youth activists and bloggers, has further limited the space for free expression. Their jailing sent a chilling message to those who use social media and are critical of the government. [Mili and Hajizade are on the shortlist for Index’s on Censorship’s Freedom of Expression Awards 2010]

The government’s targeting of critics and its failure to solve the murder of Elmar Huseynov shows how far the country is from being a democracy with a working independent judiciary and real political will. At stake is not only the declining media freedom, but also the lives of Azerbaijan’s determined journalists.

Dig deep for Wikileaks

 Flickr - jorge dragón

Wikileaks said it could not continue operations until its costs were covered.

Wikileaks, the whistleblowers’ home, has been temporarily shut down while its management tries to raise funds.

Its tremendous success has meant the site has often struggled under the volume of users. It has faced down governments, investment banks and the famously litigious Church of Scientology but paying its operating costs (circa $600,000) has proved its undoing. As of today instead of reading government secrets and details of corporate malfeasance all visitors to the site will see is an appeal for cash. Anyone who cares about freedom of expression should dig deep.

Wikileaks, with its simple “keep the bastards honest” ethos, aims to discourage unethical behaviour by airing governments’ and corporations’ dirty laundry in public, putting their secrets out there in the public realm. The site won Index on Censorship’s 2008 freedom of expression award because it’s an invaluable resource for anonymous whistleblowers and investigative journalists.

Among Wikileaks’ recent triumphs are its publication of top-secret internet censorship lists. The blacklists from Australia, Thailand, Denmark and Norway demonstrate exactly how censorship systems are abused to suppress free expression. The Thai list featured sites criticising the country’s royal family and the Australian blacklist turned out to include a school canteen consultancy. Despite its child porn mandate, less than half of the Australian blacklist were linked to paedophilia. Also on the list were satanic and fetish sites, anti-abortion websites, and sites belonging to a kennel operator and a dentist. Publication highlighted the lack of transparency in the process and gave impetus to the “No Clean Feed” campaign which opposes the Australian government’s internet filter proposals.

But Wikileaks is not just a tool for journalists, it allows ordinary Kenyans to read a confidential report detailing the billions their former president allegedly siphoned from the country’s coffers. Its repository includes controversial military documents including the US rules of engagement in Iraq and an operating manual issued to army officers in Guantánamo Bay. It has put corporations on notice that the costs of unethical behaviour are immeasurable in PR terms because it amplifies the Streisand effect, the social media phenomenon that punishes those who use the courts to suppress or censor information, by ensuring it has a much wider reach.

Some have dismissed the site as a snooper’s charter. Many were outraged by its publication of Sarah Palin’s hacked emails which included private email addresses and Palin’s family photographs. These critics tended to overlook that the emails also provided clear evidence that Palin was using private email accounts for state business.

Wikileaks democratises news and information, allowing the public to access secret information that once would have been limited to the chateratti. Had the Trafigura case occurred five years earlier, most journalists would have been able to access the secret report at the heart of the case, but Wikileaks enables everyone to read it. The superinjunction taken out by Trafigura was so comprehensive that of 293 articles about the suppressed report, only 11 dared to link to it or told the public where they could access it. If Wikileaks didn’t exist, it is possible that Trafigura’s management may have clung to their injunction.

For fear of compromising its integrity Wikileaks doesn’t accept funding from corporations or governments. Instead, it relies on the public. If you want to read the exposés of the future, it’s time to chip in.

Read more:

Obama administration, Wikileaks, and failed free speech  
Whistleblowers need care and attention
Wikileaks and the hazards of “intermediary censorship”

A gag too far

Carter-Ruck, the aggressive media law firm helping the Trafigura oil-trading company in relation to reports of its 2006 waste dumping disaster in Côte d’Ivoire, scored a spectacular own goal yesterday when it tried to keep the Guardian from reporting a parliamentary question due to be asked today.

The Guardian asked for an urgent hearing to overturn the gag, which goes against free-speech privileges enshrined in the Bill of Rights of 1688 as well as long-established legal precedent; Carter-Ruck withdrew before the matter came to court. It was the work of a few tedious minutes to skim through the Commons Order Book online and find the relevant question. In no time the news had been spread by flocks of twitterati.

The question refers to a previously secret High Court injunction banning the Guardian from mentioning the Minton report, commissioned by Trafigura in September 2006, which related to toxicity levels of the caustic tank washings dumped that August on the coast around Abidjan. Whatever the consultants said, Trafigura continued for three years to claim that they were harmless.

The company finally announced a weak compensation deal for some of the victims — with no admission of liability — on 17 September, the day after the Guardian published internal emails between Trafigura executives considering how to dispose of the toxic “crap” in order to profit from a cheap consignment of petrol from Mexico. The Minton report itself is available on the internet from the anti-corruption group Wikileaks.

Trafigura and Carter-Ruck have mounted a desperate campaign to stop the media from reporting on the illegal dumping, which is said to have caused vomiting, choking and skin eruptions in some 100,000 people and killed at least 12 Ivorians. As well as the injunction against the Guardian, the firm issued a libel writ against BBC2’s Newsnight, which also reported on the dumping, and threatened journalists from Norway, the Netherlands, Estonia and The Times. The Dutch Greenpeace campaigner Marietta Harjono has said she was told not to mention Trafigura on a British radio interview for fear of libel claims.

Carter-Ruck (known to readers of Private Eye by a slightly different name) specialises in protecting clients from “adverse or intrusive” media coverage, and boasts involvement in more than half the libel and privacy claims issued in the High Court in any given year. It offers a 24-hour “media alert” service, threatening media outlets in order to change or block unwanted stories before publication, and often works alongside PR agencies on behalf of clients facing “sustained and hostile media interest.” Obviously, the firm has found that its approach works — or why would it be so clumsy as to block a campaigning newspaper from reporting on Parliament?

Maria Margaronis is London correspondent for The Nation.

SUPPORT INDEX'S WORK