Bahraini government must immediately release Nabeel Rajab

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”95198″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]For the second time since 2013, the United Nations (UN) Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) has issued an Opinion regarding the legality of the detention of Mr. Nabeel Rajab under international human rights law.

In its second opinion, the WGAD held that the detention was not only arbitrary but also discriminatory. The 127 signatory human rights groups welcome this landmark opinion, made public on 13 August 2018, recognising the role played by human rights defenders in society and the need to protect them. We call upon the Bahraini Government to immediately release Nabeel Rajab in accordance with this latest request.

In its Opinion (A/HRC/WGAD/2018/13), the WGAD considered that the detention of Mr. Nabeel Rajabcontravenes Articles 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and Articles 2, 9, 10, 14, 18, 19 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by Bahrain in 2006. The WGAD requested the Government of Bahrain to “release Mr. Rajab immediately and accord him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law.

This constitutes a landmark opinion as it recognises that the detention of Mr. Nabeel Rajab – President of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR), Founding Director of the Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR), Deputy Secretary General of FIDH and a member of the Human Rights Watch Middle East and North Africa Advisory Committee – is arbitrary and in violation of international law, as it results from his exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression as well as freedom of thought and conscience, and furthermore constitutes “discrimination based on political or other opinion, as well as on his status as a human rights defender.” Mr. Nabeel Rajab’s detention has therefore been found arbitrary under both categories II and V as defined by the WGAD.

Mr. Nabeel Rajab was arrested on 13 June 2016 and has been detained since then by the Bahraini authorities on several freedom of expression-related charges that inherently violate his basic human rights. On 15 January 2018, the Court of Cassation upheld his two-year prison sentence, convicting him of “spreading false news and rumors about the internal situation in the Kingdom, which undermines state prestige and status” – in reference to television interviews he gave in 2015 and 2016. Most recently on 5 June 2018, the Manama Appeals Court upheld his five years’ imprisonment sentence for “disseminating false rumors in time of war”; “offending a foreign country” – in this case Saudi Arabia; and for “insulting a statutory body”, in reference to comments made on Twitter in March 2015 regarding alleged torture in Jaw prison and criticising the killing of civilians in the Yemen conflict by the Saudi Arabia-led coalition. The Twitter case will next be heard by the Court of Cassation, the final opportunity for the authorities to acquit him.

The WGAD underlined that “the penalisation of a media outlet, publishers or journalists solely for being critical of the government or the political social system espoused by the government can never be considered to be a necessary restriction of freedom of expression,” and emphasised that “no such trial of Mr. Rajab should have taken place or take place in the future.” It added that the WGAD “cannot help but notice that Mr. Rajab’s political views and convictions are clearly at the centre of the present case and that the authorities have displayed an attitude towards him that can only be characterised as discriminatory.” The WGAD added that several cases concerning Bahrain had already been brought before it in the past five years, in which WGAD “has found the Government to be in violation of its human rights obligations.” WGAD added that “under certain circumstances, widespread or systematic imprisonment or other severe deprivation of liberty in violation of the rules of international law may constitute crimes against humanity.”

Indeed, the list of those detained for exercising their right to freedom of expression and opinion in Bahrain is long and includes several prominent human rights defenders, notably Mr. Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja, Dr.Abduljalil Al-Singace and Mr. Naji Fateel – whom the WGAD previously mentioned in communications to the Bahraini authorities.

Our organisations recall that this is the second time the WGAD has issued an Opinion regarding Mr. Nabeel Rajab. In its Opinion A/HRC/WGAD/2013/12adopted in December 2013, the WGAD already classified Mr. Nabeel Rajab’s detention as arbitrary as it resulted from his exercise of his universally recognised human rights and because his right to a fair trial had not been guaranteed (arbitrary detention under categories II and III as defined by the WGAD).The fact that over four years have passed since that opinion was issued, with no remedial action and while Bahrain has continued to open new prosecutions against him and others, punishing expression of critical views, demonstrates the government’s pattern of disdain for international human rights bodies.

To conclude, our organisations urge the Bahrain authorities to follow up on the WGAD’s request to conduct a country visit to Bahrain and to respect the WGAD’s opinion, by immediately and unconditionally releasing Mr. Nabeel Rajab, and dropping all charges against him. In addition, we urge the authorities to release all other human rights defenders arbitrarily detained in Bahrain and to guarantee in all circumstances their physical and psychological health.

This statement is endorsed by the following organisations:

1- ACAT Germany – Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture
2- ACAT Luxembourg
3- Access Now
4- Acción Ecológica (Ecuador)
5- Americans for Human Rights and Democracy in Bahrain – ADHRB
6- Amman Center for Human Rights Studies – ACHRS (Jordania)
7- Amnesty International
8- Anti-Discrimination Center « Memorial » (Russia)
9- Arabic Network for Human Rights Information – ANHRI (Egypt)
10- Arab Penal Reform Organisation (Egypt)
11- Armanshahr / OPEN Asia (Afghanistan)
12- ARTICLE 19
13- Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos – APRODEH (Peru)
14- Association for Defense of Human Rights – ADHR
15- Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression – AFTE (Egypt)
16- Association marocaine des droits humains – AMDH
17- Bahrain Center for Human Rights
18- Bahrain Forum for Human Rights
19- Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy – BIRD
20- Bahrain Interfaith
21- Cairo Institute for Human Rights – CIHRS
22- CARAM Asia (Malaysia)
23- Center for Civil Liberties (Ukraine)
24- Center for Constitutional Rights (USA)
25- Center for Prisoners’ Rights (Japan)
26- Centre libanais pour les droits humains – CLDH
27- Centro de Capacitación Social de Panama
28- Centro de Derechos y Desarrollo – CEDAL (Peru)
29- Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales – CELS (Argentina)
30- Centro de Políticas Públicas y Derechos Humanos – Perú EQUIDAD
31- Centro Nicaragüense de Derechos Humanos – CENIDH (Nicaragua)
32- Centro para la Acción Legal en Derechos Humanos – CALDH (Guatemala)
33- Citizen Watch (Russia)
34- CIVICUS : World Alliance for Citizen Participation
35- Civil Society Institute – CSI (Armenia)
36- Colectivo de Abogados « José Alvear Restrepo » (Colombia)
37- Collectif des familles de disparu(e)s en Algérie – CFDA
38- Comisión de Derechos Humanos de El Salvador – CDHES
39- Comisión Ecuménica de Derechos Humanos – CEDHU (Ecuador)
40- Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos (Costa Rica)
41- Comité de Acción Jurídica – CAJ (Argentina)
42- Comité Permanente por la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos – CPDH (Colombia)
43- Committee for the Respect of Liberties and Human Rights in Tunisia – CRLDHT
44- Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative – CHRI (India)
45- Corporación de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos del Pueblo – CODEPU (Chile)
46- Dutch League for Human Rights – LvRM
47- European Center for Democracy and Human Rights – ECDHR (Bahrain)
48- FEMED – Fédération euro-méditerranéenne contre les disparitions forcées
49- FIDH, in the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
50- Finnish League for Human Rights
51- Foundation for Human Rights Initiative – FHRI (Uganda)
52- Front Line Defenders
53- Fundación Regional de Asesoría en Derechos Humanos – INREDH (Ecuador)
54- Groupe LOTUS (DRC)

55- Gulf Center for Human Rights
56- Human Rights Association – IHD (Turkey)
57- Human Rights Association for the Assistance of Prisoners (Egypt)
58- Human Rights Center – HRIDC (Georgia)
59- Human Rights Center « Memorial » (Russia)
60- Human Rights Center « Viasna » (Belarus)
61- Human Rights Commission of Pakistan
62- Human Rights Foundation of Turkey
63- Human Rights in China
64- Human Rights Mouvement « Bir Duino Kyrgyzstan »
65- Human Rights Sentinel (Ireland)
66- Human Rights Watch
67- I’lam – Arab Center for Media Freedom, Development and Research
68- IFEX
69- IFoX Turkey – Initiative for Freedom of Expression
70- Index on Censorship
71- International Human Rights Organisation « Club des coeurs ardents » (Uzbekistan)
72- International Legal Initiative – ILI (Kazakhstan)
73- Internet Law Reform Dialogue – iLaw (Thaïland)
74- Institut Alternatives et Initiatives Citoyennes pour la Gouvernance Démocratique – I-AICGD (RDC)
75- Instituto Latinoamericano para una Sociedad y Derecho Alternativos – ILSA (Colombia)
76- Internationale Liga für Menschenrechte (Allemagne)
77- International Service for Human Rights – ISHR
78- Iraqi Al-Amal Association
79- Jousor Yemen Foundation for Development and Humanitarian Response

80- Justice for Iran
81- Justiça Global (Brasil)
82- Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and the Rule of Law
83- Latvian Human Rights Committee
84- Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada
85- League for the Defense of Human Rights in Iran
86- League for the Defense of Human Rights – LADO Romania
87- Legal Clinic « Adilet » (Kyrgyzstan)
88- Liga lidských práv (Czech Republic)
89- Ligue burundaise des droits de l’Homme – ITEKA (Burundi)
90- Ligue des droits de l’Homme (Belgique)
91- Ligue ivoirienne des droits de l’Homme
92- Ligue sénégalaise des droits humains – LSDH
93- Ligue tchadienne des droits de l’Homme – LTDH
94- Ligue tunisienne des droits de l’Homme – LTDH
95- MADA – Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedom
96- Maharat Foundation (Lebanon)
97- Maison des droits de l’Homme du Cameroun – MDHC
98- Maldivian Democracy Network
99- MARCH Lebanon
100- Media Association for Peace – MAP (Lebanon)
101- MENA Monitoring Group
102- Metro Center for Defending Journalists’ Rights (Iraqi Kurdistan)
103- Monitoring Committee on Attacks on Lawyers – International Association of People’s Lawyers
104- Movimento Nacional de Direitos Humanos – MNDH (Brasil)
105- Mwatana Organisation for Human Rights (Yemen)
106- Norwegian PEN
107- Odhikar (Bangladesh)
108- Pakistan Press Foundation
109- PEN America
110- PEN Canada
111- PEN International
112- Promo-LEX (Moldova)
113- Public Foundation – Human Rights Center « Kylym Shamy » (Kyrgyzstan)
114- RAFTO Foundation for Human Rights
115- Réseau Doustourna (Tunisia)
116- SALAM for Democracy and Human Rights
117- Scholars at Risk
118- Sisters’ Arab Forum for Human Rights – SAF (Yemen)
119- Suara Rakyat Malaysia – SUARAM
120- Taïwan Association for Human Rights – TAHR
121- Tunisian Forum for Economic and Social Rights – FTDES
122- Vietnam Committee for Human Rights
123- Vigilance for Democracy and the Civic State
124- World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers – WAN-IFRA
125- World Organisation Against Torture – OMCT,  in the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
126- Yemen Organisation for Defending Rights and Democratic Freedoms
127- Zambia Council for Social Development – ZCSD[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1535551119543-359a0849-e6f7-3″ taxonomies=”716″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Illiberal democracies: Awash in media without plurality

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_single_image image=”102216″ img_size=”full”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_column_text]Visitors to Eurasian countries — Turkey, Russia, Ukraine or, to a lesser extent, Azerbaijan — might be impressed by the sheer number of domestic television channels that offer news programming.

The average TV viewer in Turkey flipping through the local channels is treated to an alphabet soup — atv, Kanal D, NTV, STV, interspersed with FOX TV, CNN Türk, public broadcaster TRT and countless others — all employing a vast number of journalists and purporting to keep the viewers abreast of events shaping the domestic and global agenda. The broadcasts are slick: filled with chyrons, attention-grabbing graphics, remote reports, breaking news, heated exchanges between talking heads and all the other trappings of the modern-day 24-hour news cycle.

Watching the lively debates hosted by TV personalities, who exude an air of professionalism and discernment, with or without live audiences nodding in acquiescence or registering disapproval, viewers may be given the impression that they are being exposed to a wide range of opinions in a vibrant, competitive media market.

But does this wealth of channels translate into pluralism of points of view?

“Certainly not,” says Esra Arsan, journalism scholar and former columnist for Turkey’s Evrensel, one of the remaining newspapers supplying alternative news and commentary left in the country. “In Turkey, there’s no pluralistic media environment. The Turkish media have never been pluralistic in the true sense of the word, but at least there were once mechanisms that allowed for the voices of the right, left, mainstream and fringe wings to be heard, especially, on small media groups occupying the niche space,” she says, citing the formerly independent Turkish-language media, their Kurdish-language counterparts and those of other minority groups.

Arsan described the massive media reorganisation that took place in parallel with the rise of president Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s AKP party since 2007. “It was characterised by replacing the old media owners with the new ones with close ties to the government, and exercising total control over them, especially, in big media,” she adds.

During the Erdogan-inspired restructuring of the media, professional journalists and newsroom managers were forced out or jailed, Arsan says. The replacement managers left a lot to be desired. “Many of these people are uneducated, have no idea of journalistic ethics or professionalism, they’ve become the mouthpieces for the government”. She points out that more than 3,000 professional journalists who were working prior to 2007 are now jobless.

“Nowadays, no matter how many television broadcasters there are in Turkey, we can say the government exercises control over 90 percent of them,” says Ceren Sözeri, a communications faculty member at Istanbul’s Galatasaray University, citing a recent study conducted by Reporters Without Borders.

“Among the channels not under government control were stations belonging to Doğan Group, such as Kanal D and CNN Türk. Very recently, it was sold to Demirören Group, a conglomerate with close ties to the government,” Sözeri says.

Among the TV channels that are still able to provide diversity in the face of the pro-government news she tentatively cites FOX TV, Tele1 and HalkTV, the latter being associated with the CHP, the main opposition party. “With these exceptions, almost all other remaining channels work in conformity with the government, we can say we have an environment completely devoid of diversity,” Sözeri says.

Driven by Erdogan’s efforts to build a single-party regime, this media reorganisation pursued the goal of controlling information disseminated in the country. Buffered by the concurrent changes to the constitution and legal reforms, the jailing of journalists started to rise as well.

If this sounds familiar, that’s because it should: “What [Russian president] Putin did since he came to power, was establish control over influential media outlets that had the capacity to form public opinion, firstly, TV,” notes Gulnoza Said, Europe and Central Asia research associate at the Committee to Protect Journalists.

“All federal channels are very tightly controlled by the state now, with the instructions sent to the heads of TV companies on how to report on certain situations. It’s very clear that anybody who appears on your screen on a federal channel in Russia knows how they can and cannot speak about important and critical issues like Ukraine and Syria,” she says noting the two hot-button issues around Russia’s ongoing military involvement abroad.

According to the latest numbers released by the Media and Law Studies Association, a Turkish non-profit that offers legal protection to the rising number of journalists who find themselves in the crosshairs of the government, with 173 journalists in jail, Turkey currently holds the dubious title of the regional leader.

With 10 journalists currently in jail, according to a CPJ report, Azerbaijan is a distant second in the region, and number one among the former Soviet nations. Russia has five, according to the same report.

In addition to the state-owned AzTV and Ictimai (Public) TV that was created in 2005 as part of the country’s commitments before the Council of Europe, there are four nationwide broadcasters in Azerbaijan: Atv, Xazar, Space and Lider.

Azerbaijani media rights lawyer Alasgar Mammadli says that all these channels fail to inject diversity into the discourse in his country because no outlet presents a balanced viewpoint.  

“The media only cover the government’s point of view. Considering the realities of Azerbaijan where the majority of information is obtained through TV and radio, we not only don’t have access to objective information, there’s no room for pluralistic news, we only have one expression, one colour.” He calls it “propaganda coming from the government that is disseminated to a large swath of the public,” noting that the internet is the only place offering some semblance of pluralism.

“In the entire region, I’d probably not name a single country where we’ve seen a positive trend, with the slight exception of, surprisingly, Uzbekistan,” says CPJ’s Said, noting that with the new administration of president Shavkat Mirziyoyev there has been a process of liberalisation, and for the first time in more than two decades, there are no journalists in jail.

Said notes that another negative trend is very visible in Ukraine since Russia annexed its region of Crimea in 2014. “At the time, after the Euromaidan [the wave of civil unrest that resulted in the government change], the Ukrainian media space had been relatively free for some time, but right now what we see is that the authorities are trying to control the flow of information, and the attempts are very visible and quite strong.”

Said explains that Ukrainian journalists are facing obstacles practically every day, stressing that she is not talking about Russian journalists trying cover the news from Ukraine. “The [Ukrainian] Ministry of Defense is making it extremely difficult for local journalists to get the so-called ‘military accreditation’ that would allow them to go to the eastern part of the country and cover combat operations,” says Said, adding that one of the newly imposed requirements is that the journalists applying for accreditation must provide previously written stories about the conflict.

“I would say it is censorship, because the government is trying to control the way the journalists cover the conflict,” she points out.

Galina Petrenko, director of Detector Media, a Ukrainian media watchdog organisation, disagrees: “There is pluralism [in Ukraine]. The economic interests doubtless manipulate the discourse, as the largest media belong not to the government, but to oligarchs, formidable businessmen conjoined with the power. That’s why business interests of each of these owners are reflected in the content of the media they own.”

Ukraine’s TV and radio council puts the number of the national TV broadcasters at 30, in addition to 72 regional channels. The country counts 120 satellite TV channels.

Maria Tomak of the Kyiv-based Media Initiative for Human Rights in Kyiv says that oligarchic ownership of the media has implications for pluralism. “We do have the freedom of speech, in comparison with Russia and other nations, but we do have limitations that are sometimes very tricky and are related to the economic factors, since we don’t have all that many independent media.”

She says that there is more than one “clan” or “group of influence” engaged in a struggle for power and influence. This conflict more or less preserves a tenuous pluralism. “When they start ‘oligarchic wars’, TVs show documentary footage or run news stories that clearly indicate who calls the shots at a particular channel. They mudsling or broadcast expose-style programmes, but it’s hard to call them objective, and it is hard to call it pluralism in its ideal sense.”

Bad examples are contagious

“The countries of the region quite often and quite speedily learn from each other’s negative experience,” says Mammadli. “For instance, Azerbaijan started officially blocking sites in February of 2017 through amendments to legislation. Before that, it was prevalent in Turkey and Russia.” He adds that the majority of the blocked sites are related to the alternative news sources. Mammadli puts the number of the internet sites and resources blocked in Russia at more than 136,000.

“We live in a region neighbouring Russia and Turkey and share ties with them, which speeds up the migration of these experiences into our country. Thus, the negative changes or attitudes towards human rights or the tendencies to limit freedom and rule of law in these countries can come to our country very fast,” he says. “It turns into a competition with the following logic, ‘the neighbor did it and got away with it, so let me try and see what happens’.’’

CPJ’s Said notes that these traditionally autocratic regimes keep one eye on the USA, which has been regarded as the flagman of press freedom and liberal democracy for decades. “Everybody used to look up at the USA, but since Trump was elected president, you know his routine, he wakes up in the middle of the night and starts tweeting, attacking journalists and critical media, calling everything they produce ‘fake news’.”

In her view, this definitely affects global press freedom, as dictators and elected officials with autocratic tendencies step up their pressure on critical media outlets in their own countries.

Arsan says of the effects of this phenomenon in Turkey: “If the dictator says the news is wrong or fake, even if you bring the most truthful news to them, be it on the issue of the human rights, war, the economy, the people will tend to disbelieve you. This makes the job of a journalist that much harder, because we chase the truth, and we see the tendency to disbelieve or outright denial on behalf of the audience.”

“Vulnerable stability” as the dangerous consequence

The shrinking plurality in the media throughout the entire region leads to a somewhat distorted processes of decision making during elections, says Said.  

“The lack of plurality, which is a lack of democratic process or access to such, does, in general, make any society more vulnerable. If we look at the situation inside any country, also, when you look at dictators like Putin, you may get an impression that their power is very stable and strong. But that’s a very vulnerable stability,” she adds, explaining it with the fact that it is, ultimately, one person making decisions for the entire country of millions of people.

“If you look at what Erdogan has been doing for the last 10 years or so, he has been pursuing the policy of turning Turkey into a regional leader and suppressing any alternative voice. Same with Putin and his foreign policy in Ukraine with the annexation of Crimea, or Syria. In a way, it is back to the USSR, where people could discuss things only among their family or close friends in their kitchens.”

In the opinion of Arsan, as media plurality shrinks, societies become increasingly unaware of  crises, which might set them on a path to disintegration. “This is the process of criminalising political discussion,” she said. “This is common in many Eurasian countries, as well as in the Middle East. These are the dictatorships without an end. People don’t want to go to the ballot boxes anymore because they don’t think they can effect change.”

For Mammadli, the people’s inability to access true information and analyse it means that they are contending with mass propaganda. From this point of view, the societies where people don’t know the truth will base their reactions on a lie, he says.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/4″][vc_column_text]

Media Freedom

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]

Media freedom is under threat worldwide. Journalists are threatened, jailed and even killed simply for doing their job.

Index on Censorship documents threats to media freedom in Europe through a monitoring project and campaigns against laws that stifle journalists’ work. We also publish an award-winning magazine featuring work by and about censored journalists.

Learn more about our work defending press freedom.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Mapping Media Freedom

Index on Censorship’s project Mapping Media Freedom tracks limitations, threats and violations that affect media professionals in 43 countries as they do their job.

[/vc_column_text][vc_raw_html]JTNDaWZyYW1lJTIwd2lkdGglM0QlMjI3MDAlMjIlMjBoZWlnaHQlM0QlMjIzMTUlMjIlMjBzcmMlM0QlMjJodHRwcyUzQSUyRiUyRm1hcHBpbmdtZWRpYWZyZWVkb20udXNoYWhpZGkuaW8lMkZ2aWV3cyUyRm1hcCUyMiUyMGZyYW1lYm9yZGVyJTNEJTIyMCUyMiUyMGFsbG93ZnVsbHNjcmVlbiUzRSUzQyUyRmlmcmFtZSUzRQ==[/vc_raw_html][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1534691928040-02d2971b-12c6-8″ taxonomies=”9044″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Media in exile: Eurasia’s last vestiges of freedom of expression

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Journalists Erdem Gül and Can Dündar (Photo: Bianet)

Can Dündar, editor-in-chief of Cumhuriyyet, one of Turkey’s most popular newspapers, was awaiting an appeal on his case in Turkey from Germany when the news of the coup d’etat in his homeland came. Scores of arrests followed, and his lawyer advised that Dündar, who had just narrowly escaped an assassination attempt in May 2016 outside a courtroom and was facing over five years in prison for allegedly leaking state secrets, stay in Germany.

He recalls that it was the hardest decision in his life, 40 years of which he had devoted to working as a journalist in Turkey.

“I thought it was impossible to go back, decided to stay and work from Germany, and about a year ago I with a small team started a media organization here, Özgürüz.”

When it’s time to leave

As shocking as Dündar’s story is, it is hardly unusual in the Eurasian region, where, according to International Media Support, there was a steady decline in freedom of expression in Eurasia since 2011. While for years the Committee to Protect Journalists named Turkey the biggest jailer of journalists globally, there are other nations competing for this dubious title.

For some journalists, the alternative to being jailed is an exile. According to Yavuz Baydar, chief editor of Ahval Online, a Turkey-oriented news site based in Germany, “That’s an inevitable result of oppression in any country because as long as the conventional media are suffocated and put under the yoke of the powers, it leaves journalists with no other choice than leaving the profession altogether or moving abroad.”

However, only a select few survive the shock and reemerge as viable journalists continuing to work in exile.

Some of the most successful examples of the media in exile emerged from the region and operating in the more permissive environment of Western Europe, according to Jens Uwe Thomas with RSF Germany, are Meduza, Amurburg and Spektr, Russia-oriented news portals, as well as MeydanTV, an Azerbaijani multimedia outlet in exile, Dündar’s Özgürüz and Baydar’s Ahval Online.

Challenges of exile

Thomas says that upon settling in exile, the first step for the journalists is usually to legalize their status, and then they start looking for opportunities to establish their outlets.

“The most important thing is to support these media abroad in terms of their registration,” says Bektour Iskander, editor of Kyrgyz media Kloop, who monitors exiled media and is in the process of creating a digital resources kit for them, adding that oftentimes, the media can’t relocate abroad due to lack of financial resources or visas.

“In 2010 we were threatened by the special services because of our investigative reporting about the son of president Bakiyev [of Kyrgyzstan]. But we had no opportunity to leave the country. Only now I realize that we were facing scary consequences, even assassination. We were so clueless as to how to do that, or find the resources for that, we were saved by the miracle, a revolution happened in the country and the threat disappeared,” he recalls.

One common thread for these media across the board is that while their editorial teams operate in exile, they have networks of journalists working for them from inside their home country, says Thomas, adding that secure communication and creating collaborative work environment in such circumstances is often a challenge.

“Those are operating under the great risks, which causes a lot of hurdles and obstacles for continuity and consistency in the content quality,” Baydar adds. MeydanTV founder Emin Milli agrees, “Unfortunately, journalists and their family members are under pressure. The ones who work with us have been attacked, some tortured. Some parents of theirs were fired”. Galima Bukhabrayeva, former editor of exiled Uznews web site that was allegedly hacked by the Uzbek government and is now defunct, says: “In our case, the best journalists in Uzbekistan worked with us, because in our case it wasn’t enough to be a journalist, one had to be a patriot and a citizen, and a brave person, at that.”

But the relocation doesn’t always pose a challenge, says Aleksandr Kushnar, editor of Russian exiled media Amurburg. Commenting on the success of Meduza, he says, “It makes more sense for them to be located where they are for the reasons of safety of the editorial staff [because] their geographic location doesn’t affect the quality of their content.”

Uniformly, the exiled media representatives bemoan the perception in their home countries that these media lack the situational awareness on the ground. One example of successfully solving this challenge is MeydanTV, says Iskander, adding that “they encourage citizen journalism, their readers [are] often involved in the content creation, they send photos, videos, materials.”

Another challenge all of the exiled media managers interviewed for this article cite is the lack of funding, which poses a constant problem on the back of everybody’s mind. What complicates things for the managers of these outlets is the stipulation set forward by the international donors that the medium be located in-country in order to satisfy the funding criteria, which is impossible to abide by for those operating in exile.

Silver linings

But not all is hopeless for the uprooted journalists and media managers, and alongside obvious challenges, there are reasons for cautious optimism. There are quite a few success stories among the outlets who learned to capitalise on the advantages of operating from free environments.  

Kushnar says attaining success is very difficult in reality, and he attributes it to the issues of funding, resources and teams. Speaking of the outlets, he says that  “Their capabilities are seriously restricted. Oftentimes, they cannot compete with the leading news agencies that are funded very generously. We all know very well how RT is funded all over the world. The goal for these media is to identify the niches where they still can get in and tell the truth. It’s very difficult when pro-Kremlin outlets have an audience of 40 million, and your budget is a thousand times smaller.”

The upsides are quite self-evident, according to Anton Lysenkov, editor of Latvia-based Spektr: “Our situation is beneficial. We are not subjected to constant audits and provocations. Our work environment is much more peaceful. I admire those who continue to work from Russia, and we are trying to help them,” he adds.

According to Baydar, “The upside is you can see everything with a bird’s eye, in a free domain, analyse things much more clearly in a macro way which gives a lot of advantages to focus on the main areas that need to be covered.”

Some media in exile not only survive, but they manage to thrive and even increase their audiences, like Meduza. “They have millions of unique visitors a month, and it’s been rising year to year. They’re  trusted,” says Milli. “They can work freely in Russia and come and go as they please. They’re a successful model.”

Galina Timchenko, Meduza’s editor-in-chief, cannot attribute the success of her outfit to any one strategy: “Unfortunately, there are no long-term plans and effective strategies for success in the current political climate. So far, we are not considering the possibility of moving to Russia because we cannot remain oblivious to the rising risks in that case. The media market in Russia is almost completely controlled by the state, and we don’t see a place for ourselves within such a market in the short term perspective,” she adds.

Preserving and rehearsing for the return

But what is the purpose of the media in exile and what is their end game?

While Kushnar says, exiled media preserve the freedom of the press in a dictatorship, Lysenkov adds that their goal is to supply the population with propaganda-free and less emotionally-charged content. Milli sees the enormous power of the free media to change the society for the better. “People have big hopes and need this, too. That’s why we keep working”.

Others see their ultimate goal as return home. Iskander cautions that “when a dictatorship in their home country comes to an end and [the media in exile] return home, their ratings start falling sharply. Because the credit of trust has been disintegrating, because the rhetoric could change from “at least someone is trying to do some good, even if it is from abroad” to “where have you been all these years while we were suffering?”

Despite such dangers, Bukharbayeva says, the ultimate goal of the exiled media is the return home. She points out that one loses focus and ability to write accurately when unable to visit their home country for over a decade, but “exiled media cannot exist indefinitely, and we must try to return because the time has come.”

Dündar, who has also started publishing a print magazine and opened a publishing house, is looking into opening a TV channel. He says his team’s current work is like a rehearsal in preparations for the future.

“It’s impossible to be in Turkey. But like the German Jews in WWII [who] came to Turkey, rehearsed there, came up with new ideas, and then went back to Germany after the war, we, Turks, are rehearsing and preparing for a better day in Turkey to return there”. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”10″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1523289736466-bd3f6e90-fdac-9″ taxonomies=”8607″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

الصحافة في المنفى: أوزبكستان تواصل حظرها على حامد إسماعيلوف

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”حميد إسماعيلوف هو صحافي وكاتب أوزبكي اضطر إلى الفرار من أوزبكستان في عام ١٩٩٢ بسبب ما وصفته الدولة “بميول ديمقراطية غير مقبولة“.” font_container=”tag:h2|text_align:right”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_column_text]

Journalist and author Hamid Ismailov[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

رغم كل شيء، لا يزال عبد العزيز محمد الصبري  يبتسم. لكنه لا يستطيع ان لا يشعر بالاكتئاب عندما يرى الصور التي التقطت له قبل بضعة أشهر، والتي يظهر فيها وهو يحمل عدسة كاميراته أو يقوم بتثبيت كاميرا فيديو على حاملها الثلاثي القوائم: “لقد صادرها الحوثيون مني. صادروا كل المعدات التي كنت أملكها. حتى لو أردت الاستمرار في العمل، فلن أكون قادرا على ذلك”، يقول صبري.

صبري هو صحافيّ ومخرج ومصوّر يمني من تعز، المدينة التي شكّلت لفترة وجيزة الجبهة الأكثر دموية في الحرب الاهلية الدائرة في البلاد. وقد عمل صبري في أخطر النقاط الساخنة، حيث قام بتزويد وسائل الإعلام الدولية مثل رويترز و سكاي نيوز بالمواد الصحفية والصور الأصلية من جبهات القتال. “لقد أحببت دائما العمل في الحقل”، يقول صبري، ويضيف: “لقد قمت بعمل جيّد ومثمر حقّا منذ بداية ثورة 2011 “.

منذ بداية الحرب، تدهورت بيئة عمل الصحفيين اليمنيين بشكل مضطرد. على سبيل المثال، خضع الصحفي المخضرم يحيى عبد الرقيب الجبيحي لمحاكمة مغلقة حكمت عليه بالإعدام بعد أن نشر مقالات تنتقد المتمرّدين الحوثيين في اليمن. وقد اختفى العديد من الصحفيين أو تم اعتقالهم، وأغلقت وسائل إعلام عديدة، في خلال السنوات القليلة الماضية.

بحسب صبري، “يواجه قطاع الإعلام وأولئك (الصحفيون) الذين يعملون في اليمن آلة حرب تقوم بسدّ كل الأبواب في وجوهنا، فهي تسيطر على جميع  المكاتب المحلية والدولية لوسائل الإعلام. طالت الهجمات والاعتداءات ضدنا 80 بالمئة من الأشخاص الذين يعملون في هذه المهن، من دون أن نشمل الصحفيين الذين قتلوا، كما سجّلت 160 حالة اعتداء وهجوم واختطاف مختلفة. واضطر العديد من الصحافيين إلى مغادرة البلاد للنفاذ بحياتهم مثل صديقي العزيز حمدان البكري الذي كان يعمل لقناة الجزيرة في تعز “.

 

حميد إسماعيلوف يستحق اعتذارًا. أو على أقل تقدير ، تفسيرا.

لقد مرت ٢٦ سنة على الأحداث التي أجبرت الصحفي الأوزبكي حامد إسماعيلوف على مغادرة وطنه أوزبكستان والفرار إلى المملكة المتحدة. في التسعينيات ، كان إسماعيلوف يعمل مع طاقم تلفزيون هيئة الإذاعة البريطانية لصنع فيلم عن أوزبكستان لكن النظام القمعي للرئيس إسلام كريموف فتح قضية جنائية ضد إسماعيلوف بعد أن ادّعت السلطات إن إسماعيلوف يحاول إسقاط الحكومة.

أصدقاء إسماعيلوف نصحوه بالهروب من أوزبكستان بعد صدور تهديدات ضد عائلته وحدوث هجمات على منزله وهذا ما فعله. بعد أربع وعشرين عامًا ، ما زال لم يعد الى وطنه.

لكن هذا لا يعني أنه لم يحاول العودة. فلقد حاول إسماعيلوف العودة عدة مرات آخرها  في العام الماضي بعد وفاة كريموف في عام ٢٠١٦ ولكنه تم منعه من الدخول.

على الرغم من أن إسماعيلوف هو أحد أكثر الكتّاب الأوزبكيين شهرة في العالم ، فان كتبه لا تزال محظورة في بلده الأصلي. لا يتم التسامح مع أي ذكر لاسماعيلوف وقد تم محو وجوده أساسا من الحياة الثقافية اليومية في وطنه. ومع ذلك ، فانه في عصر الإنترنت ، وجد إسماعيلوف طرقًا للوصول إلى الجمهور الأوزبكي من خلال مواقع التواصل الاجتماعي فنشرت بعض رواياته على فيسبوك حيث يستطيع الأوزبك قراءتها.

وفقا لمؤشر حرية الصحافة لمنظمة مراسلون بلا حدود ، تحتل أوزبكستان المرتبة ١٦٩ من بين ١٨٠ دولة. مع التحكم الصارم في وسائل الإعلام التقليدية ، بدأ اهتمام الحكومة في الآونة الأخيرة ينصب على اتخاذ إجراءات صارمة ضد مواقع الأخبار المستقلة وتطبيقات الرسائل الفورية.

بعد وفاة كريموف في عام ٢٠١٦ ، تولى رئيس الوزراء شوكت ميرزيوييف السلطة. في ٢آذار / مارس ٢٠١٨ ، أفرجت أوزبكستان عن الصحفي يوسف روزيمرادوف، الصحفي الذي أمضى أطول وقت في السجن في العالم بعد أن سُجن لأكثر من ١٩ عامًا. وأعرب إسماعيلوف عن سعادته بنبأ إطلاق سراح روزيمرادوف ، لكنه لا تزال لديه الكثير من الشكوك اذ يقول: “بقدر ما أنا متفائل ، فأنا متشكك أيضاً”.

خلال اقامته في المنفى في المملكة المتحدة ، عمل إسماعيلوف في الخدمة الدولية بهيئة الإذاعة البريطانية بي بي سي. في أيار/ مايو ٢٠١٠ ، تم تعيين إسماعيلوف ككاتب مقيم في بي بي سي، وهو المنصب الذي شغله حتى نهاية عام ٢٠١٤. يشغل إسماعيلوف حاليًا منصب رئيس تحرير شؤون آسيا الوسطى في هيئة الإذاعة البريطانية.

تحدث حميد إسماعيلوف إلى سيدني كالش من مجلّة “اندكس أون سنسرشب” (مؤشر الرقابة) عن حالة حقوق الإنسان في أوزبكستان ووقته في المنفى وكتابه المترجم حديثا “رقصة الشيطان”. فيما يلي النص المحرّر للمقابلة:

اندكس أون سنسرشب: ماذا كان وضع حقوق الإنسان في أوزبكستان قبل مغادرتك وكيف تغير الوضع على مدار الـ ٢٣ عامًا الماضية؟

إسماعيلوف: للأسف تدهور الوضع على مر السنين بسبب النظام الاستبدادي للرئيس كريموف ، الذي كان في السلطة في ذلك الوقت وتوفي في عام ٢٠١٦. لذا خلال كامل هذه الفترة كان وضع حقوق الإنسان سيء جدا في أوزبكستان. كانت أوزبكستان دائما في المراتب الدنيا في سجلات حقوق الإنسان في العالم. لذا ، في أيامنا هذه مع الرئيس الجديد ، فإن طريقة تصرف شرفات ميرزيوييف تجعلنا نأمل في أن يتحسن الوضع مع حقوق الإنسان لأن العديد من السجناء السياسيين تم إطلاق سراحهم. تم اطلاق بعض الأنشطة وأصبحت الصحافة أكثر نشاطًا وانفتاحًا. هناك بصيص من الأمل في أن الأمور سوف تتحسن. لكن في نفس الوقت – اذا نظرنا الى بلدان أخرى حيث قام زعماء جدد بالتظاهر في البداية بأنهم إصلاحيين ولكنهم عادوا إلى سياسات الحكام السابقين – فأنا أيضا متشكك بعض الشيء. بقدر ما أنا متفائل ، أنا متشكك أيضا.

اندكس أون سنسرشب: لقد حاولت العودة إلى أوزباكستان في العام الماضي وتم منعك ، فهل تعتقد أنك سترى بلدك مرة أخرى؟

إسماعيلوف: نعم ، كان ذلك من المؤسف اذ أنه حتى في ظل السلطات السابقة حاولت مرتين دخول أوزبكستان بعد أحداث أنديجان في عام ٢٠٠٥ ، لكن النظام الجديد لم يسمح لي بدخول البلاد. شكّل ذلك لي صدمة. أعتقد أنهم مدينون لي باعتذار حول السبب الذي لم يسمحوا لي من أجله بالدخول إلى بلدي. أنا واحد من الكتاب المعروفين جيدا في الغرب وجميع أنحاء العالم الذين يروجون للأدب الأوزبكي ، وربما أكثر من أي شخص آخر. فلماذا لم يُسمح لي بدخول البلاد؟ أحتاج إلى شرح واعتذار على الأقل قبل أن أقرر ماذا أفعل بعد ذلك.

اندكس أون سنسرشب: وقد شعرت بهذه الطريقة في كل مرة يتم فيها رفض دخولك ، أي أنت تشعر فقط أنك تحتاج إلى اعتذار؟

إسماعيلوف: أعتقد ذلك. أنا لم ارتكب أي جرائم ضد أوزبكستان. لم أفعل أي شيء يضر بأوزبكستان. كل ما أقوم به هو الترويج للأدب والثقافة من أوزبكستان في جميع أنحاء العالم. لذلك ، شعرت بالصدمة والقلق بسبب عدم السماح لي بالدخول إلى أوزبكستان. إنه المكان الذي يعيش فيه جميع أقاربي ، وأنا كنت أخطط للذهاب إلى قبر والدتي. لكن عندما خططت لكل شيء ، فجأة ، طُردت من المطار.

اندكس أون سنسرشب: أنت لم تعش في البلد منذ عام ١٩٩٢ ، ولكنك لا تزال تنشر باللغة الأوزبكية. هل يعني هذا أنك ما زلت تكتب من أجل الجمهور الأوزبكي ، وليس الجمهور الغربي؟

إسماعيلوف: أكتب بلغات مختلفة. أنا أكتب باللغة الأوزبكية. وأنا أكتب باللغة الروسية. أنا أكتب باللغة الإنجليزية كذلك. أي (أنا أكتب بـ) لغات مختلفة للجماهير المختلفة. إذا كنت أكتب بالأوزبكية ، فمن الأرجح أن يكون ذلك موّجها للأوزبك، اذ ليس هناك الكثير من الأشخاص الإنجليز أو الروس الذين يقرؤون باللغة الأوزبكية. الترجمات مفيدة لي كثيرا بسبب الحظر المفروض على كتبي في أوزبكستان. ولكن في عصر الإنترنت ، لا يشكل الحظر أهمية كبيرة لأنني ما زلت أستطيع نشر عملي على الويب. شيء آخر هو أن الناس يخافون من ذكري أو التحدث عن أعمالي لأنهم يعرفون عواقب ذلك. ومع ذلك ، فإن الإنترنت تجعل حياتي أسهل بكثير.

اندكس أون سنسرشب: كتابك الجديد ، رقصة الشيطان، على وشك أن يصدر في المملكة المتحدة باللغة الإنجليزية ، ما هو موضوع الكتاب؟

إسماعيلوف: في الحقيقة رقصة الشيطان ليس كتابًا جديدًا. فأنا انتهيت منه في عام ٢٠١٢ ثم نشرته باللغة الأوزبكية على فيسبوك. انتشر بشكل واسع جدا في ذلك الوقت. يبدو جديدًا لأنه تم ترجمته إلى الإنجليزية. في الحقيقة ، لقد كتبت ثلاث روايات بعد ذلك ، وقد أنهيت رواية بالإنجليزية أيضا. “رقصة الشيطان” هي قصة الكاتب الأيقوني ، عبد الله قادري، الكاتب الأوزبكي العظيم من القرن العشرين ، الذي أراد كتابة رواية من شأنها أن تنسخ كل ما كتبه من قبل وتحل محله. نحن نعلم ما الذي كان من المفترض أن تدور حوله هذه الرواية ، لكن في الوقت الذي بدأ فيه في كتابة هذه الرواية ، تم اعتقاله. بعد عشرة أشهر ، في عام ١٩٣٨ ، اعدم بالرصاص في سجون ستالين. روايتي تدور حول أيام قادري في السجن وكيف يقوم بالتفكير في روايته الشهيرة التي لم تكتب. هناك روايتان داخل رواية واحدة فلقد تجرأت على كتابة رواية نيابة عنه. تظهر هذه الرواية في عقله لذا فهي ليست مكتوبة مئة في المئة ولكن هناك مسودات تقريبية ، وهناك قصص ، وهناك نوايا وأفكار. انها رواية مكتوبة وغير مكتوبة في الوقت نفسه.

اندكس أون سنسرشب: كيف أثّر الوقت الذي أمضيته ككاتب مقيم في هيئة الإذاعة البريطانية عليك كصحفي؟

إسماعيلوف: لقد كان ممتعاً ولكن في نفس الوقت شعرت بمسؤولية كبيرة لأنني كنت أمثل هذه المجموعة العظيمة من الكتاب مثل جورج أورويل ، وف. س. نايبول وغيرهم. كنت أشعر وكأنني تجسيد لهؤلاء الناس. كنت أحاول أن أعرض ما تعنيه الكتابة للمنظمة ، ما الذي يعنيه الإبداع لهذه المنظمة.

اندكس أون سنسرشب: ما هو الجزء الأصعب في كونك صحفي في المنفى؟

إسماعيلوف: الجزء الأصعب هو عدم التواجد مع شعبك على أساس يومي. على الرغم من أنك تقابلهم بشكل يومي افتراضيا ولكنك لا تراهم وجهًا لوجه ، وهذا هو الجزء الأصعب. لكن هناك أشياء ايجابية في المنفى رغم ذلك، مثل أن تبدأ بالنظر إلى الجزء الخاص بك من العالم أو بلدك بمنظور أوسع. يمكنك رؤية منظور بلدك في العالم. يمكنك مقارنة تجارب بلدك بأجزاء أخرى من العالم ويمكنك أن تأتي بتجارب أو تجارب مماثلة لبلدان أخرى الى عالمك. لذلك هناك إيجابيات وسلبيات.

اندكس أون سنسرشب: كيف تعتقد أن تقاريرك الصحفية قد تغيرت منذ أن كنت في المنفى؟

إسماعيلوف: أعتقد أن الصحافة في الاتحاد السوفياتي السابق كانت مفاهيمية للغاية. أي أنها كانت تتمحور حول المفاهيم والمخططات الكبيرة بدلاً من القصص البشرية. صحافة الـ بي.بي.سي تركّز أكثر على القصص الإنسانية ، أي أنت تقارب الواقع من خلال القصص الإنسانية والتجارب البشرية. كان هذا هو الفرق الأكثر إثارة للانتباه وكانت تجربة مذهلة بالنسبة لي. أنا ككاتب ، أتعامل مع قصصي دائمًا من خلال تجارب شخصياتي وهذا كان يشبه جدًا مقاربة الصحافة الغربية. لذلك، تحقق لدي الانسجام في العمل الصحفي هنا. ككاتب ، أنت تقارب الأشياء من خلال الشخصيات ، كصحفي هنا أنت تفعل الشيء نفسه.

اندكس أون سنسرشب: لقد ذكرت مرة أن بعض الناس يشعرون أكثر ارتباطًا بثقافة بلدهم الأصلي وأكثر فخرًا بثقافتهم بعد مغادرة بلدهم ، هل تشعر بهذه الطريقة حول ثقافة أوزبكستان؟

إسماعيلوف: نعم ، أنا أشعر كذلك. نعم ، أشعر بالمسؤولية عن ثقافتي لأنني عندما أفكر في أجدادي ، عن جداتي وعن بلدي وعن عمّاتي، وعن جميع الأشخاص الذين كانت مشاركتهم في ثقافتي كبيرة جدًا – أشعر أنه يجب أن أعطي شيئًا بالمقابل إلى هذه الثقافة التي جعلتني ما أنا عليه اليوم. لكن في الوقت نفسه ، أشعر بأنني جزء من ثقافات مختلفة ، من الثقافة الروسية ، من الثقافة الإنجليزية أيضًا ، بعد أن عشت في لندن على مدار ٢٤ عامًا الماضية. لم أعش أبدا في مكان واحد لفترة طويلة كهذه. لذا ، أنا أشيد بهذا البلد وأنا مدين لهذا البلد. أكتب عدة روايات باللغة الإنجليزية كتحية لهذا البلد ولهذه الثقافة.

قد تكون أوزبكستان مدينة لأسماعيلوف بالشكر اذن.

https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2018/03/journalism-in-exile-uzbekistan-continues-its-bar-on-hamid-ismailov /

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

SUPPORT INDEX'S WORK