Post-Soviet Media Law & Policy Newsletter
Issue 27-28
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law March 31, 1996
State Department Country Reports on Human Rights
Each year, the State Department prepares Country
Reports on Human Rights Practices. These reports cover a number of categories,
including freedom of speech and of the press. We have taken, from the recently-issued
1995 reports concerning the republics of the former Soviet Union, the section
which specifically deals with press and media rights. These are spotty,
hardly comprehensive reports and vary in quality from country to country.
We present them both because they contain valuable information and because
they represent the State Department’s official assessment. In an appendix
to the reports, the State Department includes the following disclaimer:
We base the annual Country Reports on Human Rights
Practices on information available from all sources, including American
and foreign government officials, victims of human rights abuse, academic
and congressional studies, and reports from the press, international organizations,
and nongovernmental organizations (NGO’s) concerned with human rights.
We find particularly helpful, and make reference in most reports to, the
role of NGO’s, ranging from groups in a single country to those that concern
themselves with human rights worldwide. While much of the information we
use is already public, information on particular abuses frequently cannot
be attributed, for obvious reasons, to specific sources.
By law, we must submit the reports to Congress by January
31. To comply, we provide guidance to United States diplomatic missions
in July for submission of draft reports in September and October, which
we update by year’s end as necessary. Other offices in the Department of
State provide contributions and the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights,
and Labor prepares a final draft. Because of the preparation time required,
it is possible that yearend developments may not be fully reflected. We
make every effort to include reference to major events or significant changes
in trends.
We have attempted to make these country reports as comprehensive
as space will allow, while taking care to make them objective and as uniform
as possible in both scope and quality of coverage. We have given particular
attention to attaining a high standard of consistency despite the multiplicity
of sources and the obvious problems related to varying degrees of access
to information, structural differences in political and social systems,
and trends in world opinion regarding human rights practices in specific
countries.
It is often difficult to evaluate the credibility of
reports of human rights abuses. With the exception of some terrorist organizations,
most opposition groups and certainly most governments deny that they commit
human rights abuses and often go to great lengths to conceal any evidence
of such acts. There are often few eyewitnesses to specific abuses, and
they frequently are intimidated or otherwise prevented from reporting what
they know. On the other hand, individuals and groups opposed to a particular
government sometimes have powerful incentives to exaggerate or fabricate
abuses, and some governments similarly distort or exaggerate abuses attributed
to opposition groups. We have made every effort to identify those groups
(e.g., government forces, terrorists, etc.) that are believed, based on
all the evidence available, to have committed human rights abuses. Where
credible evidence is lacking, we have tried to indicate why. Many governments
that profess to oppose human rights abuses in fact secretly order or tacitly
condone them or simply lack the will or the ability to control those responsible
for them. Consequently, in judging a government’s policy, it is important
to look beyond statements of policy or intent in order to examine what
in fact a government has done to prevent human rights abuses, including
the extent to which it investigates, tries, and appropriately punishes
those who commit such abuses. We continue to make every effort to do that
in these reports.
Following the reports concerning the republics of
the former Soviet Union, we have also reproduced a sample of the more interesting
reports concerning countries in Central and Eastern Europe.
RUSSIA
The Constitution provides for freedom of mass information
and the “right of each person to seek, receive, pass on, produce, and disseminate
information freely by any legal method.” Although the Russian Federation
Government still retained various potential levers over the media, including
publication licensing, access to printing presses, access to newsprint,
and distribution, the print media—most of which are independent of the
Government and many of which are privately owned—functioned, with exceptions,
relatively unhindered and represented a wide range of opinions. Also, small,
private radio stations continued to proliferate, and independent and semi-independent
television throughout the country continued to multiply.
Nevertheless, reports of government pressure on selected
media increased, especially in relation to the conflict in Chechnya. In
May the Fourth Congress of the Russian Union of Journalists, representing
60,000 journalists nationwide, reported that “political, economic, and
administrative pressure on media organizations and individual journalists
in Russia has been increasing.” The Union also noted that “one of the most
important achievements of the press today is the fact that the political
spectrum is represented” in both the print and broadcast media. The Glasnost
Defense Foundation (GDF), a media watchdog organization, reported over
450 cases of violations of journalists’ rights during 1995, of which 60
percent were related to the conflict in Chechnya. This was a 150 percent
increase over the same period during the previous year, although the increase
may be due in part to better reporting. In Chechnya the Glasnost Defense
Foundation reported 371 incidents against 267 journalists; 14 journalists
died in Chechnya.
The GDF reported some 200 incidents unrelated to Chechnya
that included: murders and other suspicious deaths of journalists (30 percent);
restricting access to sources or news sites by authorities at different
levels (18 percent); financial restraints leading to the cancellation of
broadcasts or individual issues of publications, or even the complete closure
of publications (15 percent); prosecutions of journalists because of their
reports (14 percent); robberies and destruction of journalists’ equipment,
including the firebombing of newspaper offices in Tomsk (9 percent); and
other types of interference by authorities, including intimidation of sources
(8 percent) and outright censorship (6 percent). During the summer, a criminal
case was initiated by the regional government against Arsenyevskie Vestiye,
a newspaper in the Primorskiy region, for reprinting a 1994 report on human
rights violations in the region.
In the Chechen conflict, both Russian and foreign journalists
reported that the Russian army subjected them to detentions, beatings,
and sniper attacks. Other reports of abuses by the Russian army cited destruction
of video and audio equipment and exposed tapes, censorship of completed
reports, and interference in reaching the zones of conflict. The Government
established a special committee to urge the media to project official government
war information, although this effort was generally ineffective.
In addition, the Government attempted to revoke the
accreditation of certain journalists working in the war zone without a
court order as required by a 1991 law on mass media. In a case involving
government actions in Chechnya, the Constitutional Court ruled that the
Government’s efforts to evict critical journalists from Chechnya without
a valid court ruling were illegal. The ruling reaffirmed the constitutional
right to free information and guarantee of court protection of rights and
freedoms. As a result of this ruling, journalists were permitted back into
the area of conflict. However, the pressures against them continued.
The Government did not launch a serious crackdown against
the television networks for their coverage of the Chechen war. The independent
network, NTV, and, to a lesser extent, the state-owned television and radio
(now known as Russian Public Television), continued to broadcast frank
reports on the conduct of the military campaign, largely without direct
interference. However, Russian State Television head Oleg Poptsov charged
that he was nearly fired, and that government officials attempted to intimidate
him due to the station’s independent coverage of the war. The Government
did institute a criminal investigation of an NTV reporter for having interviewed
Shamil Basayev, the Chechen who led the attack on Budennovsk.
In July the General Prosecutor launched criminal proceedings
against the satiric puppet show “Kukly” on NTV, charging the show’s producers
with “public and premeditated humiliation” of high state officials, including
President Yeltsin, by depicting them “in an insulting manner.” The Kukly
case was subsequently dropped.
Outside the large media markets of Moscow and St. Petersburg,
regional media continued to be subject to varying degrees of pressure from
authorities and dominant industries. Regional officials cited unpaid debts
as a pretext for closing some newspapers that were also critical of regional
governments. Many media organizations were liable to pressure because they
occupied city-owned premises or received subsidies from local and regional
governments. In towns dominated by single industrial enterprises, the leaders
of that enterprise had sufficient power to suppress investigative reporting
and discussion of embarrassing topics, such as environmental pollution
or privatization schemes benefiting management. In these circumstances,
some journalists said they practiced self-censorship. Despite a ruling
by the Presidential Judicial Chamber in favor of the regional newspaper
Luberetskaya Pravda, local authorities took over the paper and hired an
entirely new staff. In the far eastern city of Khabarovsk, local authorities
closed the independent television station TV S.E.T. in August after it
broadcast programs critical of the regional administration.
Perilous finances caused some independent media to accept
government and private subsidies. The sudden withdrawal of financial subsidies
at the time of the breakup of the Soviet Union continued to bedevil the
print media. In a replay of a similar effort in 1994, the Federation Council
rejected a law passed by the Duma on state support for the media, which
would have replaced most of the media subsidies now in the state budget—89
billion rubles in 1995 compared with 237 billion rubles the previous year—with
an expanded package of tax breaks.
There are also reports that investigative journalists
were subjected to intimidation and pressure by emerging private business
and financial interests.
ARMENIA
The Constitution provides for freedom of the press.
In practice, however, the Government has, on occasion, shown intolerance
of newspapers critical of government policies. Freedom of the press was
partially restricted in December 1994, when the Government shut down four
Dashnak-affiliated newspapers, as well as eight other media outlets with
Dashnak party members in key positions. Ten of these remain closed. Independent
and opposition newspapers, most of which have extremely few resources,
are dependent on the Government for newsprint and publication facilities—an
arrangement that has continued intact from the Soviet period. Newsprint
is sold at various prices depending on the purchaser, and, at times, is
completely unavailable to opposition papers. Golos Armeni and a few other
independent newspapers have stopped publishing because of paper shortages
and financial problems. Several media correspondents were physically attacked
and offices of several newspapers were firebombed. No suspects have been
arrested in any of these cases.
Despite these hardships, opposition newspapers have
continued to publish and print articles critical of the Government. There
is no prepublication censorship. However, the Government supplies all mass
media editors with a list of forbidden subjects, most of which relate to
the military. There were no reports of prosecutions for violations of this
injunction.
Broadcasting is largely controlled by the Government.
There is one functioning independent radio station. There are also several
small independent cable television companies which are only licensed to
show films.
State television provided a total of 5 minutes per candidate
and 30 minutes per party of free airtime during the parliamentary elections.
In contrast, the ruling “Republic” bloc, through its control of the media,
used scheduled programs to publicize its candidates and implored voters
to choose Republic at the polls. Part of the President's speech in support
of the Republic bloc was shown on election day, in violation of the electoral
law. Exhortations to vote “yes” on the constitutional referendum appeared
frequently on state television in the weeks before the vote. The shortage
of electricity limited broadcast time for programming to about 3 hours
per day.
Generally, there is more freedom in academic institutions
than was the case during the Soviet period. Instructors and students express
their opinions during lectures and seminars. There is no official censorship
or ideological framework imposed upon them. Bribes for good grades reportedly
are common.
AZERBAIJAN
The new Constitution provides for freedom of speech
and the press. However, there is no evidence yet that the Government will
respect these rights in practice. Past practices have led journalists to
exercise self-censorship. The Government officially censors the press for
military purposes and subjects newspaper premises to searches and raids.
In October the authorities closed the office charged with political censorship
but left open a second censorship office. While opposition media reported
a loosening of censorship, some articles continued to be censored, especially
articles personally critical of the President. The arrest and conviction
of journalists who published an article satirizing the President (see Section
1.d.) reinforced this message. The OSCE/UN Joint Electoral Observation
Mission found that “Political censorship of party and independent newspapers...restricted
the freedom of speech of political parties.” Nevertheless, articles critical
of government policy and of high government figures apart from the President
do appear in the press. The press is able to publish articles about many
controversial subjects such as the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process, allegations
of government rigging of the elections, and failure of government leadership
in the economic field. Newspapers may be closed for 1 month if they violate
military censorship rules which restrict publication of military secrets.
The number of newspapers remains quite large, with some
estimates reaching 300 or more, including newspapers operated by major
and minor opposition parties. The price of newsprint, exceeding world prices
by 30 to 40 percent, has forced several of the most prominent newspapers
to halt publication for various periods and has forced some papers out
of business entirely. The state-run printing monopoly also has raised its
prices and acted to keep certain opposition newspapers out of its distribution
kiosks. Independent news distributors, however, continue to sell opposition
papers.
The Government controls most radio and television, and
the opposition has little access to the official electronic media. During
the election campaign, opposition parties and candidates received free
air time to campaign and a wide variety of views were voiced, including
some strong, direct criticism of the Government. However, in at least three
instances, opposition candidates’ statements were censored in part.
There is an independent television station accessible
only to the small number of Baku residents who own modern foreign-produced
television sets. Bodyguards of the head of the state television and radio
beat the head of this independent station earlier in 1995 in a clear attempt
to harass the station off the air. There are about 10 other independent
television stations in the country, but their operations are generally
very limited. Independent radio is almost entirely entertainment oriented.
Independent television and radio outlets are generally reluctant to air
controversial political topics because they fear Government retaliation.
Correct political connections are a prime requisite
for those seeking posts in government-controlled institutions, including
universities. However, there are several professors with tenure who are
active in opposition parties. There were no complaints of abuse of academic
freedom, or of censorship of books or academic journals.
BELARUS
The Constitution provides for freedom of speech, but
the Government often does not respect this right in practice. The executive
branch of government, through the head of the president's chief directorate
for public information, increased direct suppression of freedom of expression
through its near total monopoly on the means of production and distribution
of mass media and through its use of laws on slander. A defamation law
makes no distinction between private and public persons for the purpose
of lawsuits for defamation of character. A public figure who has been criticized
for poor performance in office may ask a public prosecutor to sue the newspaper
that printed the criticism.
The newspaper Svaboda was sued four times for publishing
material critical of the Government. In late May Svaboda's bank accounts
were frozen pending payment of a 45 million ruble fine assessed during
a trial in which the newspaper was not represented. At year's end, the
newspaper's official accounts remained frozen, although the newspaper has
managed to continue publishing. After pressing criminal charges against
the newspaper, deputy procurator general Kondratyev sent Svaboda an official
warning that criticism of government employees in the performance of their
duties would result in lawsuits and the closing of the newspaper. When
Svaboda criticized a judge's decision as“not objective” in a case against
opposition member of Parliament Sergei Antonchik, the judge in the case,
Lyubov' Zholnerchik, sued the paper for one billion rubles for defamation
of character.
Despite the passage of a press law in 1994 prohibiting
the existence of a press monopoly, the Government maintained a virtual
monopoly over the press since it owns nearly all printing and broadcasting
facilities and manages the distribution of all print media through official
outlets. There are some private newspapers printed in Belarusian and Russian.
However, in December, on instructions from the Lukashenko administration,
the monopolist state printing house cancelled the contracts of the leading
independent newspapers Belorusskaya Delovaya Gazeta, Imya, and Svaboda.
The newspapers contracted with a Lithuanian printing concern and continue
to publish, but the state postal service, which distributes all other periodicals
to subscribers, refused to distribute these newspapers.
The Government's direction of the issuance of radio
frequencies and cable television licenses and the registration of radio
stations, as well as its ownership of the country's only broadcast television
station, amount essentially to complete control of the broadcast media.
All mass media must register with the Government, which can use the registration
requirements as an instrument of censorship since it can revoke registration
at any time. This absence of independence encourages editors to practice
self-censorship. In November President Lukashenko attempted to halt broadcasting
of television programs featuring candidates for the upcoming parliamentary
elections. The candidate made efforts to obtain air time on other television
channels. Some succeeded.
President Lukashenko also issued decrees replacing the
editors-in-chief of the four leading daily newspapers following the former
editors' attempts to publish excerpts of a sensationalistic December 1994
report on corruption within the Lukashenko Government. According to both
the press law and the newspapers' charters, the President had no authority
to take such action. In the final week before the December 10 round of
elections, Speaker of the old Parliament Myacheslav Grib sought to broadcast
an apolitical get-out-the-vote message via state television, but was denied
air time. Grib then attempted to broadcast his message via two independent
Russian television stations which are rebroadcast in Belarus. However,
the Ministry of Communications shut down the transmitters of these two
television stations “for repairs.”
The state-owned Belarusian Television and Radio Company
(B-TR) runs the only nationwide television station and also controls frequencies
and licenses for all broadcast media. The B-TR closed Minsk's independent
Cable Channel 8 for the 3 months leading up to the parliamentary elections“for
transmitter repairs.” B-TR issued the station a license to reopen only
after both rounds of elections were over and after station management officials
agreed to a clause in their contract that the station would never broadcast
political reporting. B-TR management on one occasion censored the remarks
of two foreign Ambassadors on the independently produced television show
“Praskpekt,” a weekly political television newsmagazine broadcast on B-TR.
The independent television studio Fit, which produced the program, was
informed by B-TR management that if it did not censor the program, the
B-TR would restrict the studio’s access for the five other programs it
produced for broadcast on B-TR.
The observance of academic freedom is mixed. University
students and academics alike are free to pursue virtually any course of
study or research. After enjoying considerable freedom to develop curriculums
in the first years following independence, educators are now more restrained.
In August, 2 weeks prior to the start of the 1995-96
school year, President Lukashenko reportedly signed a decree ordering schools
to return to Soviet-era textbooks. The decree claimed that post-Soviet
textbooks were politicized and required their replacement with Soviet-era
textbooks pending development of new curriculums. After educators and intelligentsia
strongly objected to the move, President Lukashenko denied having signed
the decree. Moreover, in response to their outspoken criticism of the decree,
two deputy ministers of education, Tatiana Galko and Gennadiy Petrovsky,
were fired. Following these actions, educators appear to be less outspoken
in pursuit of academic reform.
GEORGIA
The Constitution and the 1991 press law provide for
freedom of the press. The Government improved its respect of this right
in practice, although some problems remained. Press freedom for private
media was almost universal in 1995, with the exception of an unsuccessful
attempt by certain officials to censor a private television station. Observers
noted that police harassment of journalists had declined. Dozens of opposition
newspapers with wide circulation operate without interference throughout
Georgia.
The Government finances and controls many newspapers
and most television stations, and they reflect principally official viewpoints.
The government-financed newspapers Sarkartvelos Respublic and Svobodnya
Gruzya, do not publish opposition viewpoints. The State also owns and operates
the major publishing house. Opposition spokesmen complain they do not have
equal access to government-operated national television stations nor the
resources to print large numbers of their newspapers. The government-operated
stations have introduced some programs designed to air opposition viewpoints.
During the campaigns prior to the November 5 elections, all political parties
were given equal time on government television with rotating time slots.
On June 16, the Ministry of Communications rescinded
the license of a local television station “Rustavi TV” after the station
refused to submit to censorship by municipal authorities. The Ministry
closed “Rustavi TV” under the pretense that it was engaging in illegal
commercial activity. After media and diplomatic protests to the Head of
State’s office, the Ministry of Communications restored the license on
July 18.
KAZAKHSTAN
The Constitution and the 1991 Press Law provide for
freedom of the press. The Government continued to own and control printing
and distribution facilities and to subsidize periodicals, including many
which were supposedly independent. The potential for government control,
as well as reports of specific instances of government officials making
suggestions about what a journalist should and should not cover, resulted
in widespread media self-censorship.
One such instance involved Karavan, the most independent
newspaper in Kazakhstan. The Karavan Publishing Corporation owns a printing
press and runs its own distribution network. In March, after Karavan ran
critical stories about the dissolution of Parliament, a Karavan-owned warehouse
burned down, destroying 1 million dollars worth of newsprint. The official
investigation of the fire blamed a drunken welder, but Karavan’s independent
investigation found evidence of arson. After the fire, Karavan gradually
reduced its coverage of political topics.
Despite occasional heavy-handedness, the press was generally
permitted to criticize government decisions. For example, many newspapers
ran critical analyses of the draft Constitution during the officially-designated
“discussion period” in July. During the run-up to the December parliamentary
elections, the press also questioned the value of establishing a new Parliament
with only limited powers. Official corruption remained an acceptable topic
for critical coverage.
Most political opposition groups freely issued their
own publications. One such paper, the Kazak nationalist Kazakhskaya Pravda,
was shut down by the General Prosecutor’s office in April under the charge
of “inciting ethnic tension.” By September, according to the Minister of
Press and Mass Media, the paper was allowed to resume publication. Several
independent newspapers emerged as new voices for the opposition, particularly
Delovaya Nedelya (Business Week) and Novoye Pokoleniye (New Generation).
There are many radio and television companies, both
public and private, but the Government controls all broadcasting facilities.
An association of independent broadcasters of Central Asia exists. However,
government officials and representatives of the state television corporation
continued to call for a state-sponsored union of independent television
stations. In the fall, a government decision to reduce the number of hours
of television broadcasting from Russia was criticized by human rights activists,
especially in the majority Russian-speaking regions of northern Kazakhstan.
The Government reversed its decision, and by the end of the year, much
of the television broadcasting from Russia had been restored.
The law against insulting the President and other officials
remained on the books, and the new Constitution provides for the protection
of the dignity of the President. Russian journalist Boris Suprynuk was
convicted of insulting a public prosecutor and sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment
(see Section l.e.) in May.
Several laws controlling advertising in the mass media
were passed. One law restricts alcohol and tobacco advertising on television,
as well as “pornography” and “violence” during prime viewing hours. Another
law, whose interpretation was still in question, restricted the amount
of advertising in newspapers to 20 percent of each issue. The Minister
of Justice and the Minister of Press and Mass Media interpreted this law
as restricting paid articles, not commercial advertisements.
KYRGYZ REPUBLIC
A 1992 law calls for freedom of the press and mass media
but also provides guidelines proscribing publication of certain information.
The law supports the right of journalists to obtain information, to publish
without prior restraint, and to protect sources. However, it also contains
provisions that the Government has used to restrict press freedom. For
example, the law prohibits publication of material that advocates war,
violence, or intolerance toward ethnic or religious groups; desecration
of national norms, ethics, and symbols like the national seal, anthem,
or flag; publication of pornography; and propagation of “false information.”
The law also states that the press should not violate the privacy or dignity
of individuals. It requires all media to register with the Ministry of
Justice and to await the Ministry’s approval before beginning to operate.
Fully independent newspapers and magazines exist in
the capital, as well as a few hours of independent television broadcasting
and some independent radio stations. Almost all electronic media and a
significant portion of print media are still government supported. The
Government continues to influence media coverage. The only overt antipress
actions this year have been presidential lawsuits for slander against newspaper
editors and reporters. The President successfully sued two editors of the
independent newspaper Res Publica after the newspaper published an editorial
claiming that President Akayev had foreign property and bank accounts.
The allegations were not proved, and the two editors were found guilty
of publishing false information which libeled the President. They were
sentenced to 18 months in prison and barred from practicing journalism
for that period. The prison sentences were suspended at the request of
the President. The editors have appealed the conviction. The first Appeal
Court upheld the conviction, and it is now being appealed to the Supreme
Court. In November upon returning from Moscow, a medical doctor who is
a human rights activist was arrested and charged with libel for writing
an article published in Res Publica in June. He was released on bail and
is awaiting trial. While living in Moscow he claimed to be in exile since
he faced arrest on returning home.
The presidentially created Council on the Activities
of the Mass Media continued to dampen journalistic freedoms. At least two
journalists received warnings from the Council to cease writing certain
types of articles. Nonetheless, newspapers like Res Publica continued to
publish articles critical of the President, the Government, and government
policy.
There were a number of complaints that law enforcement
officers harassed journalists. This was especially the case during the
Turkish summit and the Manas celebration when both foreign and domestic
journalists were sometimes physically restrained from taking pictures or
approaching restricted areas even when they had permission to do so.
MOLDOVA
The Constitution and the law provide for freedom of
speech and the press, although with some restrictions. The Government does
not abridge freedom of speech, and the print media express a wide variety
of political views and commentary. National and city governments own a
number of newspapers, but political parties and professional organizations,
including trade unions, also publish newspapers.
Several independent radio stations broadcast in Moldova,
including at least one religiously oriented station. An independent television
station started broadcasting in August. The independent media outlets maintain
news staffs and conduct a number of public interest programs. The Government
owns and operates a television channel and several of the major radio stations.
The press law retains language (after some modification
as a result of recommendations made by the Council of Europe and the OSCE)
that forbids “contesting or defaming the State or the people.” These restrictions
are also contained in the new Constitution. They appear to be aimed at
journalists publishing material in favor of reunification with Romania
and questioning the legal right of the Republic of Moldova to exist.
The Government does not restrict foreign publications.
Western publications do not circulate widely since they are very expensive
by local standards. Romanian and Russian publications also have become
difficult to obtain due to their expense. Moldova receives television and
radio broadcasts from Romania and Russia. Cable subscribers receive the
National Broadcasting Corporation (NBC) Super Channel, Euro-News, and a
number of entertainment networks.
In the Transdniester, print media, with the exception
of a paper published by local Russian army units, are controlled by the
local authorities. The one independent cable television station is under
pressure from the authorities. Most Moldovan papers do not circulate in
the Transdniester. A few copies of the Moldovan government paper and a
paper sponsored by the ruling
Democratic-Agrarian party do circulate there, but in
extremely limited fashion. Circulation of all print media in Transdniester
is greatly limited by the local economic crisis, which is more severe than
in the rest of Moldova.
TAJIKISTAN
Despite Article 30 of the Constitution and the 1991
law protecting freedom of speech and press, the Government severely restricts
freedom of expression in practice.
Journalists, broadcasters, and individual citizens who
disagree with government policies may not speak freely or critically. The
Government exercises control over the media, both through legislation and
through the dismissal and harassment of journalists and broadcasters for
their political or ethical convictions. For example, one journalist was
dismissed upon his return to the country for speaking critically of the
Tajikistan Government while in the United States. Also, the head of the
Khorog local television station was fired after the station broadcasted
a written statement by the head of the Tajik opposition. Some journalists
were threatened with violence by armed men for writing or publishing articles
critical of the Government. The U.S. nongovernmental organization (NGO)
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) reported that many Tajik journalists
were afraid to meet with a visiting CPJ group in September.
The Government also controls the printing presses and
the supply of newsprint and broadcasting facilities, and subsidizes virtually
all publications and productions. Some newspapers were threatened with
heavy fines for various, sometimes spurious, violations of financial rules
and regulations. Editors fearful of reprisals exercise careful self-censorship.
Nevertheless, several new, semi-independent publications appeared.
Two journalists were killed in 1995. In addition to
Minbar-I-Islam editor Nafezbek Rahmonov, killed by an opposition commander
(see Section 1.a.), the local British Broadcasting Corporation stringer
and cultural figure, Muhiddin Olimpur, was killed by unknown persons in
Dushanbe in December. The new Procurator General opened investigations
of at least three previous murders of journalists.
The February 1994 Supreme Soviet decree remained in
force; it suspended the activity of all independent electronic media until
a new law on the media was adopted. However, it was not strictly enforced;
9 of 14 independent television stations broadcast periodically during 1995.
Academic expression is limited to some extent by fear
of reprisals, but much more so by the complete reliance of scientific institutes
upon government funding. There were no new reports of professors going
into hiding or being arrested.
TURKMENISTAN
The Constitution provides for the right to hold personal
convictions and to express them freely. In practice, however, freedom of
speech is severely restricted, and there is no freedom of the press. The
Government completely controls radio and television. Its budget funds all
print media. The Government censors all newspapers; the Committee for the
Protection of State Secrets must approve all prepublication galleys. Russian
language newspapers from abroad are routinely confiscated at international
airports.
The Government prohibits the media from reporting the
views of opposition political leaders and critics, and it rarely allows
the mildest form of criticism in print. The government press has condemned
the foreign media, including Radio Liberty, for broadcasting or publishing
opposing views, and the Government has subjected those mentioned in critical
foreign press items to threats and harassment.
The Government also restricts academic freedom. It does
not tolerate criticism of government policy or the President in academic
circles, and it discourages research into areas it considers politically
sensitive. The government-controlled Union of Writers has in the past expelled
members who have criticized government policy; libraries have removed their
works. Intellectuals have reported that the security organs have instructed
them to praise the President in their art and have warned them not to participate
in receptions hosted by foreign diplomatic missions.
Critics of the Government in all fields were frequently
reminded that continued criticism could lead to many repercussions including
the loss of employment and opportunities for advancement. In the past,
children have been dismissed from school and adults have been removed from
their jobs because of the political activities of relatives.
On occasion, the authorities resorted to stronger methods
to silence their critics. On August 10, dissident Khudaiberdy Khalliev
was abducted by assailants believed linked to the security organs. After
being driven to the desert, Khalliev was severely beaten and abandoned.
In July two journalists were arrested, reportedly on suspicion of organizing
protest demonstrations (see Section 1.d.).
Almost all prominent political opponents of the present
Government have chosen to leave the country for reasons of personal safety
(see Section 1.d.).
UKRAINE
A 1991 law provides for freedom of speech and the print
media. Criticism of the Government is tolerated. The broadcast media remain
under state ownership and are managed by the State Committee on Television
and Radio (Derzhteleradio). Under current legislation, private and foreign
companies are entitled to establish and operate transmission facilities,
provided that they obtain a license from the National Council on Television
and Radio. Russian state television (the “Ostankino” channel) continues
to broadcast on Ukraine’s airwaves under an agreement with Derzhteleradio.
The National Council and Derzhteleradio also permit private media companies
access to the airwaves under contract and have agreed in principle to refrain
from influencing programming content. In practice, however, isolated cases
of censorship and attempted censorship of reporting on internal political
developments have occurred.
The print media demonstrate a tendency towards self-censorship
on matters sensitive to the Government. The executive branch, through the
Ministry of Press and Information, subsidizes the operations of some large-circulation
publications. Independent newspapers have also been established which are
free to function on a purely commercial basis. There are concerns, however,
that the dependence of commercial structures on government patronage inhibits
their criticism of the Government. At the local and regional levels, editorial
independence is even more circumscribed by these factors. Foreign-owned
newspapers are permitted.
In November 1994, President Kuchma abolished a government
committee for the protection of state secrets that had enjoyed broadly
defined powers over all media. The committee was absorbed into the Ministry
of Press and Information, where it is now the “Main Department for the
Protection of State Secrets.” According to journalists, this department
has not interfered with the practice of their craft. A local court, however,
ordered the closure of the newspaper Oppositsiya that had published scatological
and sexual caricatures of the President and members of his staff. Officials
involved with the case claimed the presidential administration initiated
the action and prescribed the penalty. Oppositsiya was the first newspaper
to be forced to close in Ukraine since independence.
Reporting on organized crime and its connections with
the Government is becoming increasingly bold, particularly with regard
to crime. Reporting on this topic is not risk free and journalists contend
that they have been subject to threats—including the threat of arrest—for
aggressively reporting on official corruption.
While the major universities are state-owned, they now
operate ostensibly under full autonomy. Academic freedom within universities,
however, is an underdeveloped and poorly understood concept. University
administrators are traditionally conservative establishment figures in
Ukraine and possess the power to silence professors with whom they disagree
by denying the possibility to publish or more directly by withholding pay
or housing benefits. This atmosphere tends to limit the free spirit of
inquiry. Several private and religiously affiliated universities have been
founded (or refounded) in Ukraine since independence, and all operate without
any reported interference or harassment by the State.
UZBEKISTAN
Although the Constitution provides for “freedom of thought,
speech, and convictions,” freedom of public speech remained severely limited.
The fear of expressing views critical of the President and Government persisted
as the Government continued its general crackdown on all forms of opposition.
A February 15, 1991, law against “offending the honor and dignity of the
President” limits the ability to criticize the President.
Although the Constitution prohibits censorship, it is
widely practiced and the Government tolerates little, if any, criticism
of its actions. Newspapers may not be printed without the censor’s approval.
Journalists and writers who want to ensure that their work is published
report that they practice self-censorship.
The Uzbekistan Information Agency cooperates closely
with the presidential staff to prepare and distribute all officially sanctioned
news and information. Press reports from Moscow and Uzbekistan media sources
allege that the presidential apparat has advised newspaper editors-in-chief
to limit strictly their contact with American and some European diplomats.
Nearly all newspapers are government-owned and controlled; the key papers
are organs of government ministries. State enterprises control the printing
presses.
The last opposition newspaper to be published was that
of the Erk party. In January 1993, the newspaper was banned and has not
been published since then.
The Government also forbids the distribution of foreign
newspapers critical of Uzbekistan. The publication of the local editions
of Izvestia and Pravda and the sale of the Moscow edition remained suspended
throughout 1995. All newspapers, magazines, and weeklies have to be registered,
a procedure which includes providing information about the sources of funding,
means of distribution, founders, and sponsors. A resolution by the Cabinet
of Ministers bans private persons and journalist collectives from founding
newspapers or magazines. Foreign correspondents based in Tashkent report
that the security services have harassed and threatened their translators
and other local employees.
Television broadcasting is state controlled. Although
there are local stations in various regions, nationwide programming is
on two state-run channels that fully support the Government and its policies.
The Ostankino channel from Russia has evening broadcasts. Its news broadcasts
are blacked out when they are critical of the Government. A cable television
joint venture between the state broadcasting company and an American company
broadcasts the Hong Kong-based “Star TV” channels, including British Broadcasting
Corporation (BBC) World News to Tashkent and a few other locations. Radio
Liberty, the Voice of America and the BBC are among the few sources of
uncontrolled news, although the Government occasionally interfered with
Radio Liberty broadcasts.
In addition to state-controlled television there is
at least one major station in Samarkand that considers itself independent.
It claims not to receive any government subsidy and to exist wholly on
income derived from advertisers. It currently has two channels and plans
a third, devoted to business news. The station broadcasts national programs
and the Ostankino channel. It plans its own programming to compete with
these offerings. It is clearly sensitive to political concerns from the
center but claims not to be formally censored.
There are no private publishing houses, and government
approval is required for all publications.
Virtually all academic institutions and academies are
experiencing increased autonomy, although freedom of expression is still
limited. Most institutions are in the process of revising curriculum, and
western textbooks are in great demand.