[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 7]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 10378-10380]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            OSCE REPRESENTATIVE CITES THREATS TO FREE MEDIA

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. ALCEE L. HASTINGS

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 9, 2010

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, as Co-Chairman of the 
Helsinki Commission, I wish to draw the attention of colleagues to the 
timely and informative testimony of the OSCE Representative on Freedom 
of the Media, Dunja Mijatovic, who testified earlier today at a 
Commission hearing on ``Threats to Free Media in the OSCE Region.'' She 
focused on various threats to journalists and independent media 
outlets, including physical attacks and adoption of repressive laws on 
the media as well as other forms of harassment. Most troubling is the 
murder of journalists because of their professional activities. 
According to the U.S.-based Committee to Protect Journalists, 52 
journalists have been killed in Russia alone since 1992, many reporting 
on corruption or human rights violations. Ms. Mijatovic also flagged 
particular concern over existing and emerging threats to freedom on the 
Internet and other communications technologies. She also voiced concern 
over the use of criminal statutes on defamation, libel and insult which 
are used by some OSCE countries to silence journalists or force the 
closure of media outlets. With respect to the situation in the United 
States, she urged adoption of a shield law at the federal level to 
create a journalists' privilege for federal proceedings. Such a 
provision was part of the Free Flow of Information Act of 2009, which 
passed the House early in the Congress and awaits consideration by the 
full Senate.
  As one who has worked to promote democracy, human rights and the rule 
of law in the 56 countries that comprise the OSCE, I share many of the 
concerns raised by Ms. Mijatovic in her testimony and commend them to 
colleagues.

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Representative on 
                          Freedom of the Media

                          (By Dunja Mijatovic)

 [From the Helsinki Commission Hearing on the Threats to Free Media in 
                    the OSCE Region, June 9, 2010 ]

       Dear Chairmen, Distinguished Commissioners, Ladies and 
     Gentlemen,
       I am honored to be invited to this hearing before the 
     Helsinki Commission at the very beginning of my mandate. I 
     feel privileged to speak before you today. The Helsinki 
     Commission's welcoming statement issued on the day of my 
     appointment is a clear manifestation of the strong support 
     you continuously show toward the work of this unique Office, 
     and I assure you, distinguished Commissioners, that this fact 
     is very much appreciated.
       It will be three months tomorrow since I took office as the 
     new Representative on Freedom of the Media to the OSCE. Even 
     though three months may sound short, it has proved more than 
     enough to gain a deep insight, and unfortunately also voice 
     concerns, about the decline of media freedom in many of the 
     56 countries that today constitute the OSCE.
       Although the challenges and dangers that journalists face 
     in our countries may differ from region to region, one sad 
     fact holds true everywhere: The freedom to express ourselves 
     is questioned and challenged from many sides. Some of these 
     challenges are blatant, others concealed; some of them follow 
     traditional methods to silence free speech and critical 
     voices, some use new technologies to suppress and restrict 
     the free flow of information and media pluralism; and far too 
     many result in physical harassment and deadly violence 
     against journalists.
       Today, I would like to draw your attention to the constant 
     struggle of so many institutions and NGOs around the world, 
     including your Commission and my Institution, to combat and 
     ultimately stop violence against journalists. I would also 
     like to address several other challenges that I want to place 
     in the center of my professional activities, each of which I 
     intend to improve by relentlessly using the public voice I am 
     now given at the OSCE.
       Let me first start with violence against journalists.
       Ever since it was created in 1997, my Office has been 
     raising attention to the alarming increase of violent attacks 
     against journalists. Not only is the high number of violent 
     attacks against journalists a cause for concern. Equally 
     alarming is the authorities' far too-prevalent willingness to 
     classify many of the murders as unrelated to the journalists' 
     professional activities. We also see that more and more often 
     critical speech is being punished with questionable charges 
     brought against the journalists.
       Impunity of perpetrators and the responsible authorities' 
     passivity in investigating and failing to publicly condemn 
     these murders breeds further violence. There are numerous 
     cases that need to be raised over and over again. We need to 
     continue to loudly repeat the names of these courageous 
     individuals who lost their lives for the words they have 
     written. I am sorry for all those whom I will not mention 
     today; but the names that follow are on the list that I call 
     ``the Hall of Shame'' of those governments that still have 
     not brought to justice the perpetrators of the horrifying 
     murders that happened in their countries.
       The most recent murder of a journalist in the OSCE area is 
     the one of the Kyrgyz opposition journalist Gennady Pavlyuk 
     (Bely Parokhod), who was killed in Kazakhstan in December 
     last year. It gives me hope that the new Interim Government 
     of Kyrgyzstan has announced to save no efforts to bring the 
     perpetrators to justice, as well as those involved in the 
     2007 murder of Alisher Saipov (Siyosat).
       The Russian Federation remains the OSCE participating State 
     where most members of the media are killed. Paul Klebnikov 
     (Forbes, Russia), Anna Politkovskaya (Novaya Gazeta), 
     Anastasia Baburova (Novaya Gazeta), are the most reported 
     about, but let us also remember Magomed Yevloyev 
     (Ingushetiya), Ivan Safronov (Kommersant), Yury 
     Shchekochikhin (Novaya Gazeta), Igor Domnikov (Novaya 
     Gazeta), Vladislav Listyev (ORT), Dmitry Kholodov (Moskovsky 
     Komsomolets) and many others.
       We also should not forget the brutal murders of the 
     following journalists, some remain unresolved today:
       Hrant Dink (Agos) Armenian Turkish journalist was shot in 
     2007 in Turkey.
       Elmar Huseynov (Monitor) was murdered in 2005 in 
     Azerbaijan.
       Georgy Gongadze (Ukrainskaya Pravda) was killed in 2000 in 
     Ukraine.
       In Serbia, Slavko Curuvija (Dnevni Telegrat) was murdered 
     in 1999, and Milan Pantic (Vecernje Novosti) was killed in 
     2001.
       In Montenegro, Dusko Jovanovic (Dan), was shot dead in 
     2004.
       In Croatia, Ivo Pukanic (Nacional) and his marketing 
     director, Niko Franjic, were killed by a car bomb in 2008.
       Violence against journalists equals violence against 
     society and democracy, and it should be met with harsh 
     condemnation and prosecution of the perpetrators. There can 
     be no improvement without an overhaul of the very apparatus 
     of prosecution and law enforcement, starting from the very 
     top of the Government pyramid.
       There is no true press freedom as long as journalists have 
     to fear for their lives while performing their work. The OSCE 
     commitments oblige all participating States to provide safety 
     to these journalists, and I will do my best to pursue this 
     goal with the mandate I am given and with all professional 
     tools at my disposal.
       We also observe another very worrying trend; more and more 
     often the imprisonment of critical journalists based on 
     political motivations including fabricated charges. Let me 
     mention some cases:
       In Azerbaijan, the prominent editor-in-chief of the now-
     closed independent Russian-language weekly, Realny 
     Azerbaijan, and Azeri-language daily, Gundalik Azarbaycan, 
     Eynulla Fatullayev was sentenced in 2007 to a cumulative 
     eight-and-a-half years in prison on charges on defamation, 
     incitement of ethnic hatred, terrorism and tax evasion. The 
     European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Azerbaijan in 
     violation of Article 10 and Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2 of 
     the European Convention on Human Rights, so there is only one 
     possible outcome--Fatullayev should be immediately released.
       In Kazakhstan, Ramazan Yesergepov, the editor of Alma-Ata 
     Info, is serving a three-year prison term on charges of 
     disclosing state secrets.
       Emin Milli and Adnan Hajizade, bloggers from Azerbaijan, 
     are serving two and a half

[[Page 10379]]

     years and two years in prison respectively since July 2009 on 
     charges of hooliganism and infliction of light bodily 
     injuries.
       In Uzbekistan, two independent journalists, Dilmurod Saiid 
     (a freelancer) and Solijon Abdurahmanov (Uznews), are 
     currently serving long jail sentences (twelve-and-a-half-
     years and ten years) on charges of extortion and drug 
     possession.
       I will continue to raise my voice and demand the immediate 
     release of media workers imprisoned for their critical work.
       I join Chairman Cardin for commending independent 
     journalists in the Helsinki Commission's recent statement on 
     World Press Freedom Day. These professionals pursue truth 
     wherever it may lead them, often at great personal risk. They 
     indeed play a crucial and indispensable role in advancing 
     democracy and human rights. By highlighting these murder and 
     imprisonment cases, by no means do I intend to neglect other 
     forms of harassment or intimidation that also have a 
     threatening effect on journalists. Let me just recall that, 
     with the heightened security concerns in the last decade, 
     police and prosecutors have increasingly raided editorial 
     offices, journalists' homes, or seized their equipment to 
     find leaks that were perceived as security threats.


            Suppression and restriction of Internet Freedom

       Turning to the problems facing Internet freedom, we can see 
     that new media have changed the communications and education 
     landscape in an even more dramatic manner than did the 
     broadcast media in the last half century. Under my mandate, 
     the challenge has remained the same: how to safeguard or 
     enhance pluralism and the free flow of information, both 
     classical Helsinki obligations within the OSCE.
       It was in 1998 that I read the words of Vinton G. Cerf in 
     his article called ``Truth and the Internet''. It perfectly 
     summarizes the nature of the Internet and the ways it can 
     create freedom.
       Dr. Cerf calls the Internet one of the most powerful agents 
     of freedom: It exposes truth to those who wish to see it. But 
     he also warns us that the power of the Internet is like a 
     two-edged sword: it can also deliver misinformation and 
     uncorroborated opinion with equal ease. The thoughtful and 
     the thoughtless co-exist side by side in the Internet's 
     electronic universe. What is to be done, asks Cerf.
       His answer is to apply critical thinking. Consider the 
     Internet as an opportunity to educate us all. We truly must 
     think about what we see and hear, and we must evaluate and 
     select. We must choose our guides. Furthermore, we must also 
     teach our children to think more deeply about what they see 
     and hear. That, more than any electronic filter, he says, 
     will build a foundation upon which truth can stand.
       Today, this foundation upon which truth could indeed so 
     firmly stand is under continuous pressure by governments. As 
     soon as governments realized that the Internet challenges 
     secrecy and censorship, corruption, inefficiency and bad 
     governing, they started imposing controls on it. In many 
     countries and in many ways the effects are visible and they 
     indeed threaten the potential for information to circulate 
     freely.
       The digital age offers the promise of a truly democratic 
     culture of participation and interactivity. Realizing that 
     promise is the challenge of our times. In the age of the 
     borderless Internet, the protection of the right to Freedom 
     of Expression ``regardless of frontiers'' takes on a new and 
     more powerful meaning.
       In an age of rapid technological change and convergence, 
     archaic governmental controls over the media are increasingly 
     unjust, indefensible and ultimately unsustainable. Despite 
     progress, many challenges remain, including the lack of or 
     poor quality of national legislation relating to freedom of 
     information, a low level of implementation in many OSCE 
     member states and existing political resistance.
       The importance of providing free access for all people 
     anywhere in the world can not be raised often enough in the 
     public arena, and cannot be discussed often enough among 
     stakeholders: civil society, media, as well as local and 
     international authorities.
       Freedom of speech is more than a choice about which media 
     products to consume.
       Media freedom and freedom of speech in the digital age also 
     mean giving everyone--not just a small number of people who 
     own the dominant modes of mass communication, but ordinary 
     people, too--an opportunity to use these new technologies to 
     participate, interact, build, route around and talk about 
     whatever they wish--be it politics, public issues or popular 
     culture. The Internet fundamentally affects how we live. It 
     offers extraordinary opportunities for us to learn, trade, 
     connect, create and also to safeguard human rights and 
     strengthen democratic values. It allows us to hear each 
     other, see each other and speak to each other. It can connect 
     isolated people and help them through their personal 
     problems.
       These rights, possibilities and ideals are at the heart of 
     the Helsinki Process and the OSCE principles and commitments 
     that we share. We must find the best ways to spread access to 
     the Internet, so that the whole world can benefit from what 
     it can offer, rather than increasing the existing gaps 
     between those who have access to information and those who do 
     not. And to those governments who fear and distrust the 
     openness brought along by the Internet, let me emphasize over 
     and over again:
       The way a society uses the new communications technologies 
     and how it responds to economic, political and cultural 
     globalization will determine the very future of that society. 
     Restrict access to information, and your chances to develop 
     will become restricted. Open up the channels of free 
     communication, and your society will find ways to prosper.
       I was delighted to hear Secretary of State Clinton speak 
     about a basic freedom in her January speech on Internet 
     freedom in the ``Newseum''. This freedom is the freedom to 
     connect. Secretary Clinton rightly calls this freedom the 
     freedom of assembly in cyber space. It allows us to come 
     together online, and shape our society in fundamental ways. 
     Fame or money is no longer a requisite to immensely affect 
     our world.
       My Office is rapidly developing a comprehensive strategy to 
     identify the main problems related to Internet regulation in 
     the 56 countries of the OSCE, and ways to address these 
     issues. I will count on the support of the Helsinki 
     Commission to advance the universal values that this strategy 
     will attempt to extend to those countries where these values 
     are still being questioned.
       Let me also mention the importance to protect the freedom 
     of other new technologies.
       Only two weeks ago, my Office organized the 12th Central 
     Asia Media Conference in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, where media 
     professionals from all five Central Asian countries adopted a 
     declaration on access to information and new technologies. 
     This document calls on OSCE governments to facilitate the 
     freer and wider dissemination of information, including 
     through modern information and communication technologies, so 
     as to ensure wide access of the public to governmental 
     information.
       It also reiterates that new technologies strengthen 
     democracy by ensuring easy access to information, and calls 
     upon state institutions with legislative competencies to 
     refrain from adopting new legislation that would restrict the 
     free flow of information. And only this spring my Office 
     published a guide to the digital switchover, to assist the 
     many OSCE countries where the switch from analogue to digital 
     will take place in the next five years. The aim of the guide 
     is to help plan the digitalization process, and help ensure 
     that it positively affects media freedom, as well as the 
     choice and quality available to the audience.
       Besides advocating the importance of good digitalization 
     strategies, I will also use all available fora to raise 
     attention to the alarming lack of broadcast pluralism, 
     especially television broadcast pluralism, in many OSCE 
     countries. As television is the main source of information in 
     many OSCE regions, we must ensure that the laws allow for 
     diverse, high-quality programs and objective news to easily 
     reach every one of us. Only well-informed citizens can make 
     good choices and further democratic values. Whether we talk 
     about Internet regulation, inventive ways to switch to 
     digital while preserving the dominance of a few selected 
     broadcasters, attempts to limit access to information or 
     broadcast pluralism, we must keep one thing in mind: No 
     matter what governments do, in the long run, their attempts 
     to regulate is a lost battle.
       People always find ways to obtain the rights that are 
     denied to them. History has shown this over and over again. 
     In the short run, however, it is very clear that I will 
     intervene with governments which try to restrict the free 
     flow of information.


                               Defamation

       Similar to fighting violence against journalists, my Office 
     has been campaigning since its establishment in 1997 to 
     decriminalize defamation and libel in the entire OSCE region.
       Unfortunately, in most countries, defamation is still 
     punishable by imprisonment, which threatens the existence of 
     critical speech in the media. This is so despite the 
     consistent rulings of the European Court of Human Rights in 
     Strasbourg, stating that imprisonment for speech offences, 
     especially when committed by criticizing public figures, is a 
     disproportionate punishment.
       Let us again remind ourselves of the journalists and 
     bloggers I have mentioned above when discussing violence 
     against journalists. They are currently in prison because 
     their writing was considered defamatory. Their fate reminds 
     us all of the importance of the right to freely speak our 
     mind.
       This problem needs urgent reform not only in the new, but 
     also in the old democracies of the OSCE. Although the 
     obsolete criminal provisions have not been used in Western 
     Europe for decades, their ``chilling effect'' remained.
       Furthermore, the mere existence of these provisions has 
     served as a justification for other states that are unwilling 
     to stop the criminalization of journalistic errors, and 
     instead leave these offenses solely to the civil-law domain.
       Currently, defamation is a criminal offence in all but ten 
     OSCE countries--my home country Bosnia and Herzegovina, 
     Cyprus, Estonia, Georgia, Ireland, Moldova, Romania,

[[Page 10380]]

     Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the United States.
       Last year, three OSCE countries decriminalized defamation, 
     which I consider to be an enormous success: Ireland, Romania 
     and the United Kingdom; the last being the first among the 
     Western European participating States to officially 
     decriminalize defamation.
       Some other countries, such as Armenia, are currently 
     reforming their defamation provisions, and I hope that I can 
     soon welcome the next country that carries out this important 
     and very long overdue reform.


                           Concluding remarks

       Dear Chairmen,
       Dear Commissioners,
       Ladies and Gentlemen,
       The above problematic areas--violence against journalists, 
     restrictions of new media including the Internet, lack of 
     pluralism and resistance to decriminalize defamation--are 
     among the most urgent media freedom problems that need our 
     attention and concentrated efforts today. However, we will 
     also not forget about the many other fields where there is 
     plenty of room to improve. Of course, I will not miss the 
     excellent opportunity that we are here together today to 
     raise your attention to the topic that my distinguished 
     predecessor, Miklos Haraszti, has already raised with you: 
     the establishment and the adoption of a federal shield law in 
     the United States.
       As you know, my Office has been a dedicated promoter of the 
     federal shield law for many years. If passed, the Free Flow 
     of Information Act would provide a stronger protection to 
     journalists; it could ensure that imprisonments such as that 
     of Judith Miller in 2005, and Josh Wolf in 2006, could never 
     again take place and hinder investigative journalism. But the 
     passage of such legislation would resonate far further than 
     within the borders of the United States of America. It could 
     send a very much needed signal and set a precedent to all the 
     countries where protection of sources is still opposed by the 
     government and is still not more than a dream for 
     journalists.
       I respectfully ask all of you, distinguished Commissioners, 
     to continue and even increase your efforts to enable that the 
     Free Flow of Information Act soon becomes the latest 
     protector of media freedom in the United States.
       And of course I cannot close my speech without mentioning 
     my home country, Bosnia and Herzegovina. As you know, not 
     only Bosnia and Herzegovina, but also most of the emerging 
     democracies in the Balkans enjoy modern and forward-looking 
     media legislation. We can openly say that they almost have it 
     all when it comes to an advanced legal and regulatory 
     framework enabling free expression to thrive. But it is not 
     that simple. I use this moment to pose several questions: if 
     there are good laws, then why do we still face severe 
     problems in relation to media freedom, why do we stagnate and 
     sometimes even move backward? Where does the problem lie? 
     And, more importantly, how can we solve it and move ahead?
       What Bosnia and Herzegovina shows us is that good laws in 
     themselves are not enough. Without their good implementation, 
     they are only documents filled with unrealized potential. In 
     countries that struggle with similar problems, we must stress 
     over and over again: without the full implementation of valid 
     legislation, without genuine political will, without a 
     comprehensive understanding of the media's role in a 
     functioning democracy, without the creation of a safe 
     environment for journalists to do their work, and without 
     true commitment by all actors, these countries risk falling 
     far behind international standards.
       Apart from unmet expectations and disillusioned citizens, 
     we all know that the consequences of politicized and misused 
     media could be very serious. In conclusion, let me assure 
     you, dear Commissioners, that I will not hesitate to openly 
     and vigorously remind any country of their responsibilities 
     toward implementing the OSCE commitments to the freedom of 
     the media.
       I am also asking you to use this opportunity today and send 
     a clear message to the governments of all OSCE countries to 
     do their utmost to fully implement their media legislation 
     safeguarding freedom of expression. The governments have the 
     power to create an environment in which media can perform 
     their unique role free of pressures and threats. Without 
     this, no democracy can flourish.
       Thank you for your attention.

                          ____________________