Despite the Constitution and the 1991 law protecting freedom of speech and the press, the Government severely restricts freedom of expression in practice. Journalists, broadcasters, and individual citizens who disagree with government policies cannot speak freely or critically. The Government exercises control over the media both overtly through legislation and less obviously through such mechanisms as “friendly advice” to reporters on what news should not be covered. The Government also controlled the printing presses and the supply of newsprint, and broadcasting facilities, and subsidizes virtually all publications and productions. Editors fearful of reprisals exercise careful self-censorship.
There is one national television service with several local offices which cover regional and local issues from an official point of view. There are also about 10 independent television stations that do not at this time have their own facilities and must make use of the official studios for most of their work. There are a variety of local newspapers, but only a handful attempt to cover serious news. Several are organs of political parties or blocs. Of three serious newspapers in Dushanbe, two were closed briefly in mid-November after one published an interview with a government opponent.
Both Ittihod, the weekly of the socialist party, and Samar, the weekly belonging to an entrepreneur and deputy of Parliament from the Vose district, on occasion were prevented from publishing articles critical of the Government. The Government nationalized a publishing house belonging to the Communist Party. An independent television station in the northern city of Khujand, linked to a former provincial chairman, closed by the regional government in 1996, remained closed. Despite passage of a new media law in December 1996, permitting independent television stations, the Government officially closed some such stations in 1997, and was very slow in publishing implementing regulations to permit independent stations to register. However, regulations were finally issued in the fall, and by the end of December, three stations were licensed and operating legally, and four others filed the required documents and need only pay registration fees.
Academic expression is limited principally by the complete reliance of scientific institutes upon government funding, and in practical terms by the need to find alternate employment to generate sufficient income, leaving little time for academic writing. In one incident, armed men broke into the house of the rector of the Tajik technological university and threatened to kill him if he did not resign within 10 days. He left Dushanbe shortly thereafter, but did not resign and returned to his position. The assailants have not been identified.
The Constitution provides for the right to hold personal convictions and to express them freely. In practice, however, the Government severely restricts freedom of speech and does not permit freedom of the press. Continued criticism of the Government can lead to personal hardship, including loss of opportunities for advancement and employment.
The Government completely controls radio and television. Its budget funds almost all print media. The Government censors newspapers; the Committee for the Protection of State Secrets must approve prepublication galleys. The two nominally independent newspapers established under presidential decree, Adalat (Justice) and Galkynysh (Revival) continue to operate. Although both newspapers profess to be independent, their content is censored. Russian language newspapers from abroad are generally available only to organizations by subscription; individuals are rarely able to subscribe. Individual issues are available in at least one Ashgabat hotel, but are sometimes confiscated from passengers arriving at international airports.
The Government prohibits the media from reporting the views of opposition political leaders and critics, and it rarely allows even the mildest form of criticism in print. The Government has subjected those responsible for critical foreign press items to threats and harassment. After publishing a series of articles critical of the Government in the Russian newspaper Pravda in 1996, journalist Marat Durdyev was fired from three state jobs: at the state-owned newspaper; an archeological site; and a state school; he also was harassed by the KNB and other government organs. The Government revoked the accreditation of the Radio Liberty correspondent in 1996 because of broadcasts by an opposition politician in exile, but it did not prevent him from continuing to file reports for broadcast in 1997.
Following his arrest on October 30, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty correspondent Yowshan Annakurbanov was released from a KNB prison on November 12. Annakurbanov reportedly was not physically harmed but remained under investigation at year’s end for allegedly attempting to smuggle “military secrets” out of the country. Reportedly, he also was forbidden to leave his apartment, meet with journalists and foreign officials, or discuss his case. An article containing inaccurate statements about RFE/RL and a negative depiction of Annakurbanov’s case appeared in the officially sanctioned daily newspaper Neutral Turkmenistan on November 14.
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.
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.
The Constitution and a 1991 law provide for freedom of speech and of the press; however, the Government persistently attempts to control the press. The Government tolerates criticism on a selective basis. Many journalists practice self-censorship. The Government largely controls the broadcast media.
The print media, both independent and government-supported, demonstrate a tendency towards self-censorship on matters sensitive to the Government although this has been decreasing over time. The executive branch, through the Ministry of Press and Information, subsidizes the operations of some large-scale publications. The Ministry has warned some periodicals against fomenting ethnic tensions and conducting antistate propaganda and has applied to the Prosecutor’s Office to open investigations into those newspapers. However, no newspapers are known to have been prosecuted as a result. Private newspapers have also been established and are free to function on a purely commercial basis. However, they practice self-censorship and are subject to various pressures such as control of access to affordable state-subsidized newsprint; dependence on political patrons who may facilitate financial support from the State Press Support Fund; close scrutiny from government officials, especially at the local level; and politically motivated visits by tax inspectors. In April the President issued a decree on support of the press that requires the Cabinet to draw up a list of publications needing government support, including those whose founders include central and local governments, public organizations, associations, unions, educational institutions, and newspaper employees. The journalistic community believes that this decree was intended to support loyal members of the press. The dependence of the subsidized and private press on the Government’s patronage particularly inhibited criticism of the Government on the local level. Foreign-owned newspapers are permitted and foreign periodicals circulate freely.
The broadcast media remain largely under state ownership. They are managed by the State Committee on Television and Radio (Derzhteleradio), whose head, according to the new Constitution, is appointed by the President and confirmed by Parliament. The President and the Parliament each appoint half of the members to the regulatory board for broadcasting, the National Council for Television and Radio Broadcasting, which issues broadcasting licenses and allocates broadcasting time. The law entitles private and foreign companies to establish and operate their own transmission facilities, provided that they obtain a license from the National Council. A news program that covers domestic political developments, notably Vikna (Windows) has fended off attempts by Derzhteleradio to preview and revise the content of their programs. In April allegedly under pressure from the parliamentary leadership, the National Television and Radio Broadcasting Council ordered the state-owned channel UT-2 to suspend the broadcasting of Pislyamova after it broadcast a report that was critical of the Communist regime in Cuba at the time of a Ukrainian parliamentary delegation’s trip to Cuba. The program was suspended but was permitted to resume broadcasting a short time later, after public protests and the intervention of the President. In December, citing increasing political pressure, Pislyamova decided to cease broadcasting for the election period.
The Committee for Protection of State Secrets enjoys broadly defined powers over all media. According to journalists, it has not interfered with the practice of their craft. There is a comprehensive, specific regulation on state secrets whose publication is prohibited. In May the Cabinet adopted a regulation that further defined state secrets to include information on executions, the state of prisons, pretrial detention blocks, and centers for the forcible treatment of alcoholics. Article 125 of the Criminal Code prescribes imprisonment of up to 5 years for libel. There is no known separate regulation regarding public officials (except for the President). A criminal case was opened against Crimean journalist Tatyana Korobova on charges of libeling Crimean parliamentarian Lev Mirimskiy who objected to her writing about his criminal connections. Article 7 of the Civil Code allows anyone, including public officials, to sue for damages if circulated information, including a publication, is untrue or if it insults a person’s honor or dignity. Journalists complain that the law is biased against them because it does not limit damages.
An editor of the newspaper Opositsiya, Ivan Makar, was given a 2-year suspended sentence in 1996 for libeling the President and his staff. Although he appealed the court decision, this year the higher court confirmed the sentence. The newspaper was closed by order of a Kiev court for publishing caricatures of the President and his staff. Its equipment was confiscated.
Reporting on organized crime and corruption in the Government, including misconduct by selected high-ranking cabinet and administration officials, is becoming increasingly bold. Journalists contend that they have been subjected to threats, including the threat of arrest, and violent assaults for aggressively reporting on crime and official corruption.
The journalistic community links the deaths of two prominent journalists to their journalistic investigations. In March a Kievskiye Vedomosti corespondent from Luhansk, Petro Shevchenko, was found hanged at a remote water heating facility in Kiev shortly after he arrived in Kiev to visit the paper’s headquarters. In August in Odesa the editor of the newspaper Vechernaya Odesa was shot and killed on his way to work by a gunman; the editor’s assailant was arrested later by police. Journalists believe that a large percentage of the 42 crimes committed against the press community in 1996 and the first half of 1997 was linked to their professional activities. A number of correspondents claim that they were beaten up or threatened in retaliation for their critical publications. Following parliamentary hearings on freedom of speech in April, police authorities pledged to better protect journalists.
Journalists complain that the vaguely worded libel and defamation article of the Criminal Code is biased against the press, because it sets no limit on damages for libel or defamation. The popular newspaper Kiyevskiye Vedonosti was ordered to pay the metropolitan authorities over $400,000 (750,000 hryvnas) for an allegedly libelous article about the mayor of Kiev. A libel case was opened against a journalist in Crimea for writing about the criminal connections of a member of the Crimean legislature, although she presented the police with documents in support of her allegations. The case was dropped only after the local journalistic community appealed to the President. In June police confiscated equipment of the Vecherniy Sevastopol newspaper in Crimea after it accused the local mayor of corruption and criticized the city court. The editor of the paper was sentenced to 10 days in jail for refusing to publish an apology, but was released after journalists’ protests. An owner of the popular newspaper Kiyevskiye Vedonosti claimed that unremitting investigations by law enforcement agencies, including tax police inspectors, into his concern’s operations were linked to the newspaper’s reports about alleged abuse of office by the Minister of Internal Affairs and chief of staff of the presidential administration.
The newspaper Region complained of massive, politically-motivated tax police investigations in March and April, following the publication of an article accusing the then-Prime Minister of establishing a monopoly on supplies of natural gas to Ukraine.
In April the Cabinet of Ministers instructed the Finance Ministry to launch a sweeping inspection into private, nongovernmental media activities, including dozens of newspaper, television, radio and publishing companies. The inspection was canceled after protests by the public and the Parliament.
In February a group of parliamentarians protested against the Rada secretariat’s refusal to give accreditation to two correspondents of the newspaper Ukrayina Moloda, which was known for its critical reports about the Parliament. In June the Parliamentary press service stripped a commentator of the television program “Accents” of his parliamentary accreditation because of his allegedly critical remarks about the Parliament and its leadership.
While major universities are state owned, they ostensibly operate under full autonomy. Academic freedom within universities, however, is an underdeveloped and poorly understood concept. Nepotism and bribery are reportedly common during entrance exams. Administrators of universities and many academic and research institutions possess the power to silence professors and scientists with whom they disagree by denying them the possibility to publish, or more directly by withholding pay, housing benefits, or by terminating their appointments. This atmosphere tends to limit the spirit of free inquiry.
Human rights groups report the State Secrets Committee
continues to maintain special censorship offices in state scientific and
research institutes including those not conducting classified research.
In September in an interview with the weekly paper Zerkalo Nedeli, the
head of the State Secrets Committee stated that these offices should remain
in such institutes because of the increasing activities of foreign companies
in Ukraine. Restrictions by the Communications Ministry on the mailing
of scientific documents have also caused concern. Several private
and religiously affiliated universities have been founded (or reestablished)
since independence; all operate without any reported interference or harassment
by the State.
The Ukraine section presents a clear, comprehensive picture of the situation of the printed and electronic media in Ukraine. The report reflects major trends in the development of the status of media freedom in Ukraine and the current situation in the national information market that can be described by the following facts:
1. A 1991 press law declares the protection of freedom of speech, but refers only to print media. The Constitution (June 28, 1996), the Law on Information (October 1992), and the Television and Radio Broadcasting Law (February 1994) declare provisions for freedom of speech. Although overt censorship is illegal, most official and formally independent (but actually controlled by some political forces and/or financial-political groups) media are reluctant to publish anti-governmental materials. Since most of the print media use state-owned publishing houses, the dissemination system, and work on state-owned frequencies and air time, overt censorship is substituted by economic levers of influence. A new way to fight the newspapers expressing “inconvenient” points of view used by the authorities involves endless verifications by taxation police or taking a newspaper or a journalist to court on allegations of libel.
2. According to the Law “On Print Media (the Press) in Ukraine,” an individual or a legal entity may not own or control over 5% of shares in a national or regional newspaper focusing on socio-political issues. Thus, the state prevents monopoly in the media while remaining the largest monopolist. The laws “On Information Agencies” and “On Television and Radio Broadcasting” limit the participation of a foreign investor in establishing an information agency or a TV or radio channel to 30% of the statute fund, while no limits on the share of foreign investment exist for the print media. In December, the parliament debated a provision which would ban the involvement of the media with 10% and over of foreign investment in political advertising during the 1998 parliamentary and 1999 presidential election campaigns.
Up to now, the state is the sole founder and funding source of many newspapers. With the help of the Independent Press Fund, created and sponsored by the state, subsidies from the budget are allocated to practically all major national publications that used to be newspapers of Communist party committees and Soviet councils before 1991. A number of by-laws limit the prices that publishing houses can take for printing state-owned newspapers. Simultaneously, independent print media have to pay enormous taxes, and publishing houses charge them much more to compensate for the losses incurred while printing state-owned newspapers. A vast majority of the printed and electronic media in the regions are also controlled by the state.
3. Most independent newspapers and TV channels do not disclose their founders or the name of their individual intermediaries or firms and, thus, do not allow readers or viewers to understand whose positions the media really advertise and support. The Ukrainian information market is divided between groups of influence and financial-political pressure that advocate interests of President Leonid Kuchma, Oleksandr Moroz, Pavlo Lazarenko, and Yevhen Marchuk. The other mass media are influenced by representatives of the shadow economy sector. Simultaneously, all these groups exert pressure on journalists.
4. As the political process is gaining momentum, manipulation of the media increases. Shortly before the elections, two major analytical programs on the Ukrainian TV, Oleksandr Tkachenko’s Pislyamova and Mykola Kanishevsky’s Vikna-Weekly were forced off the air, and the major news program, which was produced by the TSN service, was reduced to mere statements of facts. In February 1998, the Ministry of Information ordered the closure of the Pravda Ukrainy (newspaper), and shortly afterwards, the Vseukrainskie Vedomosti was closed according to the judgment of the court.
In September 1997, the parliament attempted to limit journalists’ access to the Verkhovna Rada by means of erecting “no-entry” barriers in the lobby, previously a place where journalists could communicate with MPs freely. The idea was dropped after vigorous protests by MPs who thought the measure would limit publicity they could otherwise obtain through the electronic and print media.
5. The freedom of the press is limited by the Criminal Code (which prosecutes for “degrading a person’s honor and dignity” and “deliberate humiliation”) and the Law “On Operative-Investigation Work and the Regulation on the General Department for Protection of State Secrets in the Mass Media.” The 1994 Television and Radio Broadcasting Law prohibits dissemination of “state secrets” and envisages liability for “ungrounded refusal to provide relevant information” to law-enforcement agencies and “intentional concealment of information.” According to the Law on State Secrets (January 1994), it is the journalist who is responsible for publishing the secret information, not the official who leaked it. Though no journalist has been sued in accordance with this law so far, it, potentially, opens a possibility of harassing journalists.
6. Currently, there are about 5,500 registered print media in Ukraine, 70% of them are established and co-owned by state entities. The remaining 30% are owned by their “working collectives,” which, in practice, means that they use sponsor funds from sources that choose to remain unnamed. A small number of publications are private investments.
About 25% of Ukrainians read newspapers regularly. In the regions, Regional newspapers have a stronger influence on their readers than the central media. About 67% of Ukrainians receive information through television, and about 55% trust what they see in TV news and analytical programs. Due to the growing subscription rates, the overall circulation of newspapers has dropped dramatically from 63.7 million in 1992 to slightly over 15 million in 1996.
Many of regional mass media are biased and controlled by regional officials. Though private media pay higher taxes and remain substantially dependent on state-owned printing facilities and distribution systems, the emergent trend has been the improvement of their financial viability due to attraction of business funds and advertising. Another trend has been the growing difference between formally private media—controlled and/or sponsored by the government, major banks, businesses, and lobbies—and genuinely independent media. Of the latter, only about 15% are financially viable. State-owned media generally reflect government views. Major private media tend to be less biased, though their contents are often controlled by their owners and sponsors. Independent, party, and business publications often express views at odds with the official line. According to independent journalists, it has become more difficult to publish materials that contradict the official line. Meanwhile, major publications, like Zerkalo Nedeli and Den, and electronic media, like Studio 1+1 TV broadcaster, manage to remain relatively independent, largely due to having major shares of foreign investments.
7. Article 17 of the Law “On State Support to Mass Media and Social Protection of Journalists,” which was approved by President Kuchma in September 1997 and came into force on January 1, 1998, stipulates that “liability for a crime committed against a journalist in connection with his professional duties or infringing on his professional activities is equal to liability for the same offences committed against law enforcement personnel.” To protect journalists from harassment and pressure, the law provides that “a journalist’s professional activity may not be the grounds for his arrest, detention, and confiscation of the materials that are collected, processed, and prepared by him, as well as the equipment he uses for his work.” No evidence of enforcement of this law has been seen so far.
8. The academic community is experiencing a deep crisis, and research efforts are being curbed, due to the lack of funding, rather than because of attempts of administrators of academic institutions to limit free thinking. Access to the Internet becomes available in all major academic and higher educational institutions.
Inna A. Pidluska
Ukrainian Center for Independent Political Research
Although the Constitution provides for “freedom of thought, speech, and convictions,” the Government continues to limit severely these rights.
A 1991 law against “offending the honor and dignity of the President” limits the ability to criticize the President. Journalists and ordinary citizens remain afraid to express views critical of the President and the Government.
Information remains very tightly controlled. 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. All newspapers are printed by the same state-owned printing houses, which will not print any paper whose editor does not confirm that the issue has been cleared by the censor a few hours before being submitted. The Government reportedly provides funding and office space for censors. Journalists and writers who want to ensure that their work is published practice self-censorship. Several speakers at the 1996 Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe-sponsored human rights conference openly challenged the Government’s assertion that there is no censorship. The editor of the Hurriyat newspaper, an Uzbek-language weekly that had published several issues mildly critical of some aspects of Uzbek television media, resigned due to concern that his paper might be censored after state television criticized his role; the journal then published under closer state scrutiny. Vatan, the newspaper of the progovernment Fatherland Progress Party, ceased publication temporarily after publishing an analytical article about the President’s August 1996 speech to Parliament on human rights, reportedly under pressure from government officials displeased by the article.
In April the Parliament passed a new law providing for freedom of access to information. A second law provides for protection of journalists’ professional activity, including protection for journalists’ sources, and mandates that government agencies respond to written requests for information within 30 days. A mass media law was passed in December; however, several articles are worded in such a way that they could be used to punish government critics, for example, one provision makes journalists responsible for the truth of the information contained in their news stories, potentially subjecting journalists to prosecution if a government official disagrees with a news report. At year’s end, the Government had not yet demonstrated whether it was committed to implement such laws in an effective manner so as to provide a foundation for major and positive systemic change.
The Uzbekistan Information Agency cooperates closely with the presidential staff to prepare and distribute all officially sanctioned news and information. 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 1993 it was banned and has not been published since.
Magazines and weeklies have to be registered, a procedure that 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. Limited numbers of foreign periodicals are available, but the Government does not allow the general distribution of foreign newspapers (see Section l.f).
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 broadcasts during the evening. Its news broadcasts are blacked out when they are critical of the Government. A cable television joint venture between the state broadcasting company and a U.S. company broadcasts the Hong Kong-based “Star” television channels, including the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), Deutche Welle, and Cable News Network world news, to Tashkent and a few other locations.
In September an Urgench-based independent television station resumed broadcasting after being closed by local authorities. Despite winning three court appeals, which allowed the station to reopen, local authorities used a variety of means to keep the station off the air, including sabotaging its signal, barring employees entry to the station, and using police to damage equipment. The station, managed by a former member of the opposition Erk political party, reportedly broadcasted music, news, and programming distributed by Samarkand’s television station. The Samarkand Independent Television (STV) station also considers itself independent. It claims not to receive any government subsidy and to exist wholly on income derived from advertisers. It currently has three channels and plans a fourth, devoted to entertainment in 1998. It is clearly sensitive to political concerns from the center and concentrates on nonpolitical news but claims not to be formally censored. The Samarkand station received an exclusive license from the Government to distribute television programming to stations in the western part of the country.
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which opened a bureau in Tashkent in May 1996 staffed by two local Uzbek correspondents, the Voice of America, and BBC radio, along with the less widely available cable television channels, are among the few sources of uncontrolled news.
There are no private publishing houses, and government approval is required for all publications.
Virtually all academic institutions are experiencing
increased autonomy, but freedom of expression is still limited. Most
institutions are in the process of revising curriculums, and Western textbooks
are in great demand.