![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() May 26, 2002 New freedom, old fears
On February 9, 2002, Afghanistan entered a new era of media freedom as the Hamid Karzai interim administration announced a new law claiming to guarantee freedom of the press in the country. The law gives written guarantees for a free press, and Karzai said it left Afghan journalists free to criticize the government. “People can have their newspapers, people can have their radios and they can write things, they can criticize us as much as they want,” he said. The new law formally ended years of censorship and a total ban on free speech under the ousted Taliban. Television was banned while radio and print offered little more than propaganda for the former regime. Any form of criticism was ruthlessly suppressed. Although broadcasting and most papers still remain state-controlled in Afghanistan, a number of independent magazines are now available on the streets of Kabul and some of the other bigger towns. Some writers have already started asking questions about corruption and accountability but ensuring such freedom of expression in a country where local warlords control many of the provinces can prove a major test of the Karzai administration. While it is too early to say whether the new law will promote and help tolerate healthy criticism of authority, there already have been adverse reactions to the law from international media organizations. For example, the Vienna-based International Press Institute (IPI) says the law contains “serious flaws” that could have a harmful effect on freedom of expression. In a letter to Karzai, it said the law needs a “radical re-assessment” for a number of reasons. For one, it allows only Afghan citizens to print publications, a restriction that would weaken the local media, IPI argues, adding that a ban on foreign investment in Afghan media could leave local outlets too weak to withstand potential government pressure during the transition period and beyond. IPI says the law also requires private media owners to obtain permission from the government to operate without stating the criteria for granting or denying such permission, and there is no provision which allows legal entities such as companies to enjoy private ownership. In addition, the law gives the government control over the distribution of foreign publications. One example of how the law can go against the interests of journalists surfaced on April 2, 2002 at a joint press conference in Kabul by Karzai and visiting Pakistan President Gen Pervez Musharraf. Kabir Omarzai, who works for Afghanistan’s national radio and television network, was suspended from his duties for an unspecified length of time after he asked both leaders a question about the border problem between the two countries. Karzai interrupted the journalist in mid-sentence and refused to reply. Afghan television cut the incident from its report on the press conference. Karzai asked his minister of information, Rahim Makhdoom, to sanction Omarzai, which he promptly did. This was the first time since the fall of the Taliban that an Afghan journalist was penalized for simply exercising the right to inform despite the fact that upon taking office on December 22, 2001, Karzai had declared: “Freedom of expression and of belief is each and every Afghan citizen’s right, and it is our responsibility to defend that right.” With regard to the print media, the new Afghan law creates a complicated registration and licensing system for the press. Says IPI, “This system is open to serious abuse and amounts to a licensing of individual journalists.” After setting out the registration system, the draft law states that any offences not provided for within the law in question shall be subject to Shariah law. Because of this, journalists can find themselves exposed to disproportionate penalties. In Article 3 of the law, the media are separated out into a series of categories, one of which defines the “private media” as outlets belonging to a self-financed “individual who has received permission”. IPI views the provision as a blatant breach of the internationally accepted principle that the media do not need permission to practice their profession. In addition, there would appear to be no provision that allows legal entities such as companies to enjoy private ownership. Another serious problem concerns printing in the country. According to Articles 4 and 11 of the law, only citizens of Afghanistan may print publications. Although this is similar to the approach in a number of other democratic countries, there is a generally held consensus that partial foreign investment should be allowed. IPI takes the view that foreign investment is vital to the success of the Afghani media and believes it would give the local media the strength to withstand possible government pressure during the transition period and beyond. Regarding media owners, the draft law states that permission is needed from the ministry. While this is a flagrant breach of the media’s autonomy and is thoroughly objectionable, the draft law fails to state the criteria for granting or withholding such permission. Furthermore, the appeals procedure following the original decision of the ministry is also deeply flawed because the appeal panel includes an individual from the ministry. As a result, the ministry will have a second opportunity to influence decision-making and in effect be sitting in judgment of it. In Article 24, the draft law states that the “Concessionaire” as a guarantee against future fines must place unspecified amounts on deposit. Such a system is open to considerable abuse and would serve as a financial barrier, thus halting the development of the media in Afghanistan. Elsewhere, Article 37 provides for an unacceptable warning system leading to the suspension or cancellation of a publication’s “concession”. In the opinion of IPI, this will have a chilling effect on the media and will once again inhibit the growth of the media in the country. Another deeply worrying provision concerns the censorship of foreign media. According to Article 40, the distribution of foreign publications is subject to prior permission from the ministry. Once again this is a repressive measure, which will imperil the free flow of information in Afghanistan. Excerpts from
|
|
Contributions Privacy Policy © DAWN Group of Newspapers, 2005 |