[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 103 (Thursday, July 25, 2002)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1383-E1384]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            FREEDOM OF PRESS

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 25, 2002

  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, While citizens in this country take for 
granted the freedom of the press, there are nations in this hemisphere 
where journalists are still victimized by their governments for 
exposing injustices in their societies. In Panama, despite the apparent 
triumph of democracy following the arrest of Manuel Noriega and the 
U.S. intervention in that country, inquisitive journalists such as 
Miguel Antonio Bernal are treated as criminals because they dare to 
speak out on otherwise taboo subjects.
  The following documents were prepared by Sarah Watson, Laura McGinnis 
and Karen Smith, Research Associates at the Washington-based Council on 
Hemispheric Affairs (COHA). Watson's article, entitled Press Freedom in 
Panama: Going, Going, Gone, was distributed as a memorandum to the 
press on May 30 and appeared in the June 1 issue of the organization's 
highly estimable biweekly publication, the Washington Report on the 
Hemisphere. It examines the ongoing plight of Miguel Antonio Bernal--a 
plucky professor-journalist--who was acquitted on trumped-up charges 
brought by former police chief Jose Luis Sosa, but now faces Panama's 
attorney general appealing his legal setback to a higher court and his 
intention to silence the voice of a man who cried out against 
government abuse in his country. The interview of the highly regarded 
Bernal was conducted by COHA researchers McGinns and Smith, and reveals 
the journalist's personal perspective on the state of free speech in 
his country. It appeared in the July 11 issue of the Washington Report 
on the Hemisphere.
  These documents should be of great relevance to my colleagues as they 
demonstrate the severity of the situation in Panama, and the need for 
continued international scrutiny of cases that threaten the freedom of 
speech and the right to dissent.

              Press Freedom in Panama: Going, Going, Gone

       On May 29th, Judge Lorena Hernandez announced her decision 
     on a criminal slander case that made headlines in Panama and 
     throughout Latin America. In a victory for the forces 
     defending freedom of speech and of the press, she acquitted 
     one of Panama's leading intellectuals and activists, Miguel

[[Page E1384]]

     Antonio Bernal, of flagrantly trumped-up charges brought 
     against him by former police chief Jose Luis Sosa. But Bernal 
     is not out of the woods yet--the country's attorney general 
     has announced his intention to appeal the decision. The 
     Council on Hemispheric Affairs is now embarking on a major 
     campaign to bring the deplorable situation of Panama's media 
     in general, as well as Bernal's current plight, to the 
     attention of the international community.
       One of Panama's most respected public figures, Bernal has 
     been a thorn in the side of every repressive dictatorship 
     from Colonel Torrijos on, all of which have targeted him for 
     harassment with grim regularity. Professor Bernal's 
     sufferings at the hands of previous governments included 
     being exiled from Panama by General Manual Noriega, causing 
     his flight to the U.S., where he later taught at Davidson 
     College and Lehigh University.
       Given this background, one might expect that the 
     democratically-elected government of President Mireya 
     Moscoso--who herself had been mistreated by previous 
     repressive regimes--would have offered him a safe haven from 
     where he could have played his important, if often 
     unacknowledged, muckraker role in one of the Americas' most 
     corrupt societies. Unfortunately, at least for the time 
     being, Moscoso has chosen to assume the role of an apologist 
     for Bernal's perverse persecutors.


                         Accusations of Slander

       In a 1998 radio interview, Bernal stated that he held the 
     Panamanian police responsible for the death by decapitation 
     that year of four inmates at the infamous Isla de Coiba 
     prison. Earlier, the police department had illegally seized 
     control of the facility, which had achieved well-deserved 
     notoriety for its inhumane conditions. In response to 
     Bernal's accusation, Sosa, the then-chief-of-police, sued him 
     for slander--specifically for besmirching the institutional 
     ``honor'' of the Panamanian police.
       In contrast to U.S. slander law, which provides for a civil 
     trial with, at worst, a possible monetary penalty, Bernal 
     could have faced up to two years in prison if convicted, 
     since the charges against him for ``slander and disrespect'' 
     were, under Panamanian law, criminal in nature. He also could 
     have been denied the right to work in Panama for an 
     additional two years.
       Bernal's case went to trial on May 14th, and despite his 
     recent exoneration by a Panama City judge, it is likely to 
     take months, or even years, before the appellate process runs 
     its course and any final verdict is handed down. On May 29th, 
     Judge Lorena Hernandez took the startling step of declaring 
     Bernal not guilty. Although this was the decision hoped for 
     by all his supporters, the rapidity with which it was handed 
     down came as a surprise given the usual viscous operating 
     speed of Panama's judiciary. It is likely that the wide 
     attention given to the case in the international press 
     affected the pace of the judge's decision.


                         A Legacy of Corruption

       Sosa, Bernal's accuser, was police chief during the 
     administration of Moscoso's predecessor, Ernesto Perez 
     Balladares, of the compromised PRD, General Noriega's old, 
     tainted party. Thus, it is not surprising that Perez 
     Balladares and his corrupt cronies had something to hide from 
     a free press, since many of them were acolytes from the 
     Noriega era who were continuing the venal practices inherited 
     from the master.
       But the prevailing atmosphere didn't change noticeably 
     under the leadership of Moscoso, who was elected in 1999. In 
     May of last year, she tentatively proposed an amnesty for the 
     large number of journalists accused of defamation, only to 
     backtrack and withdraw her support a month later. Moscoso 
     later instructed her attorney general to demand that 
     journalists must have proof of their allegations when they 
     levy charges of corruption. ``We cannot allow it to be said 
     that we in the government are corrupt,'' she said.


 Censorship Abounds in Corrupt Panama; With Situation Likely to Worsen

       Bernal is not the only Panamanian journalist facing such 
     charges. Some of the others include a cartoonist, Julio 
     Enrique Briceno, who was forced to meet with a judge every 
     fortnight after the former vice president of the country (who 
     also had been president of the Christian Democratic Party), 
     Ricardo Arias Calderon, sued him for ``insulting behavior.'' 
     Journalists Rainer Tunon and Juan Diaz were sentenced to 
     either 18 months in prison or a 400 euro fine, as well as 
     being banned from working in Panama for 6 months, for 
     reporting on a judge's investigation of doctors alleged to 
     possess forged licenses. One of those under investigation, 
     whose license later provided to be genuine, sued--and won--
     for damages to his reputation.
       According to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 
     (CIDH), more than 90--one out of every three--Panamanian 
     journalists have cases pending against them for libel or 
     slander. Furthermore, in 70 percent of such cases, the suit 
     was brought by a public official. The Panamanian government, 
     however, claims that only 28 journalists currently have cases 
     to be heard on the docket.
       A bill drafted last year in the corruption-plagued county 
     by interior minister Winston Spadafora is ostensibly designed 
     to regulate Panama's journalistic practices, but critics 
     maintain that it will also serve to expedite press 
     manipulation by the authorities. Among its provisions, 
     carefully knitted to net all of the government's perceived 
     foes, is the requirement that all active journalists in the 
     country must possess a license as well as a journalism 
     diploma; foreign journalists who wish to work in Panama will 
     only be able to do so if no national is available to do the 
     job, and even if they obtain permission to work, such 
     outsiders will be limited to a one-year tenure. Critics 
     insist that these rules constitute a violation of free trade 
     and the right to practice a journalism career unencumbered by 
     bureaucracy.
       The OAS Human Rights Commission, CIDH found in 1985 that 
     such ``gag rules'' as those listed above violate the Inter-
     American Convention on Human Rights. International pressure 
     was placed on Moscoso to lighten such restrictions when she 
     came into office, but she now appears to be trying to 
     reintroduce some of the most draconian controls that the 
     country has witnessed while the world's attention is 
     currently directed elsewhere.
       The international media community, as well as Panama's 
     embattled press, has risen to Bernal's defense. His case was 
     included as an example of government repression in the annual 
     report of the watchdog group, ``Reporters without Borders,'' 
     and he has been defended in editorials by some of Panama's 
     best-known human-rights advocates. Also, in 2001, Bernal 
     received international recognition for his work when he 
     received one of France's most prestigious awards, the 
     ``Academic Laurels,'' with a rank of Commander. His 
     supporters are not hesitant to observe that apparently only 
     Bernal's own government fears his pen and his tongue.

                                  ____
                                  

                  Interview with Miguel Antonio Bernal

       Conducted by Laura and Karen Smith of the Council on 
     Hemispheric Affairs


     What is your opinion on Decree 189, which requires Panamanian 
                     newscasters to have a license?

       Panama is still under the very authoritarian and anti-
     democratic conceptions that were established by the Noriega 
     military dictatorship. This decree was announced by the 
     government and is part of the different regulations they have 
     established against freedom of speech. On June 18, the 
     National Assembly approved a law that allows only those with 
     a degree in journalism from the University of Panama, or a 
     university recognized by the University of Panama, to be 
     journalists in my country. I have a political science Ph.D. 
     and a law degree, but I cannot act as a journalist in my 
     country because I don't have a journalist degree. I have been 
     on the radio without the license, but they have not fined me 
     yet.


    How do you feel about President Moscosco's new requirement that 
 journalists must have proof before they allege government corruption?

       If you denounce some corruption or government activity they 
     will say that you do not have evidence, even if it is a 
     public act. For example, they recently exonorated a foreign 
     company from paying more than one billion U.S. dollars in 
     taxes; when this was denounced they merely said, ``Show the 
     proof.'' This is a very anti-democratic conception to prevent 
     people from critiquing the government.


 Has freedom of the press become an issue in the Panamanian political 
                                process?

       Freedom of speech is one of the things that we struggled to 
     obtain during the military years. After the overflow of the 
     military, no one political party really championed freedom of 
     speech. Since then, many things have happened to journalists, 
     yet the political parties remain silent. In my opinion they 
     are not real democratic political parties because no one in 
     the former or present government has made a clear and 
     unambiguous statement advocating the protection of freedom of 
     speech.


     What needs to happen in Panama and the world to alleviate the 
                               situation?

       Panama's political process only reacts to external 
     pressures. The authorities do not heed the cries of domestic 
     critics. The judiciary, legislative and executive branches of 
     government are all hostile to the concept for free speech.


 You recently came under fire for accusing the police of decapitating 
     four prisoners, but you were acquitted. Did this surprise you?

       Yes. I think I was acquitted because of the overwhelming 
     international support my case has attracted. Immediately 
     after the judge announced the acquittal, the Attorney 
     General's office announced an appeal which they are already 
     preparing.


  What do you think your case portends for the future of journalistic 
                           freedom in Panama?

       I do not think it looks optimistic for my country. There 
     are some rightist people who want to use Panama as an 
     experiment to see if they can do the same things in other 
     places. It is important to support free speech in Panama not 
     only for its own sake, but for the sake of other countries 
     whose leaders might be tempted to do the same things.





                          ____________________