Photo Credit: AFP

The Kuwaiti government should scrap a controversial media reform law, Human Rights Watch (HRW) says. Following news that the Ministry of Information suspended a popular television program, “Talk Shawk”, presented by opposition journalist Mohammad al-Washeehi late Wednesday, HRW is renewing its call for Prime Minister Sheikh Jaber al-Mubarak to abandon a punishing proposed United Media Law that would severely curtail free speech and impose stiff fines for  “disrespecting” the constitution and “offending the emir.” The Prime Minister delayed the enactment of the new law, expected to pass parliament this month, in April after intense criticism forced him to consult editors and journalists first. Sarah Leah Whitson, the Middle East director at HRW, said of the proposed law: “As currently drafted, it would create new red lines for the media and close down the space for public debate, reversing the trend toward greater openness.” Jason Stern at the Committee to Protect Journalists warned that “The choice confronting the Kuwaiti government isn’t between passing a bad media law and freedom of the press. In fact, the choice so far has been between keeping bad media laws on the books or passing an even worse law,” adding that the government should strive to uphold freedom of the press in a new enlightened  reform bill.

Also in the Gulf, The U.S. ambassador to Yemen revealed talks between the USA and Saudi Arabia to accelerate measures to establish a fund to support Yemen’s democratic transition. Ambassador Gerald Feierstein, accompanied by Treasury Deputy Assistant Secretary for Africa and the Middle East Andrew Baukol, expressed American interest in continuing to support Yemen any way it could, including providing technical and logistical aid to the government and urging the International Monetary Fund to provide the largest amount of financial assistance in its Yemen support program’s first year of implementation.

Click here to view the video on YouTube.

This video from the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran examines the crackdown on journalists leading up to Iran’s June elections. 

Photo Credit: AFP PHOTO / ADEM ALTAN

Freedom House released its annual report on freedom of the press around the world in 2012. The report identified a global decline, asserting that “the percentage of people worldwide who enjoy a free media environment fell to its lowest point in more than a decade.” The Middle East and North Africa had the lowest ratings in the world, with nearly three-fourths of the region’s countries designated “Not Free” and none considered “Free.” Continued political turmoil throughout 2012 created uneven conditions for press freedom in the region and contributed to a net decline in press freedom across the region.

Libya and Tunisia maintained their increased ratings from 2011 in spite of a lack of institutional and regulatory structures to protect press freedom. Egypt declined significantly, losing its previous gains due to constitutional provisions allowing limitations on the press on social, political, and cultural grounds and harassment and intimidation of journalists. Its classification changed from “Partly Free” to “Not Free.” Most Gulf states saw declines in their ratings due to widespread crackdowns on political dissent. Yemen was an exception to this pattern, with a rising score due to increased media diversity. Israel, typically supportive of a “free and diverse  press,” was downgraded from “Free” to “Partly Free” due to the prosecution of reporter Uri Blau for possessing state secrets and incidents of government interference in content and licensing at several media outlets.

Traditional media in the region continued to be restricted by emergency rule, state ownership, and laws prohibiting blasphemy or insults of political figures. Governments sought to impose similar constraints on new media, such as Twitter, Facebook, and blogs, by expanding traditional mechanisms of restraint to include censorship and surveillance. Improvements were made in the legal and economic realms, but this progress was outweighed by declines in the political sphere.

Photo Credit: Karim Jaafar/AFP/Getty Images

The Iraqi government suspended the broadcasting licenses of ten satellite television channels, including Al Jazeera. Iraq’s Communication and Media Commission is imposing a ban on the operations of Al Sharqiyah, Al Sharqiyah News, Babylonian, Baghdad, Salah al-Din, Anwar 2, al Tagheer, Fallujah, Al Jazeera, and Al Gharbiyah inside Iraq, accusing them of inciting sectarian unrest that led to deadly protests and clashes last week. The commission said these channels used “rhetoric and substance coverage” that was “provocative, misleading and exaggerated with the objective of disturbing the civil and democratic process.” Since nine of the channels have Sunni financial backers and have aired extensive coverage of the Sunni uprising, the shutdown is perceived by many as an attempt by the Shiite-dominated government to silence dissent among Sunnis.

Al Jazeera expressed surprise over its suspension, stating, “We cover all sides of the stories in Iraq, and have done so for many years. The fact that so many channels have been hit all at once, though, suggests this is an indiscriminate decision.” The commission claimed it has authority to restrict news coverage that encourages “hatred on the basis of national or ethnic or religious identities that can incite discrimination, hostility or violence.” However, an unidentified State Department official asserted, “This undermines confidence in the Iraqi government’s ability to govern democratically and guarantee freedom of expression.” Ziyad al-Ajili, Executive Director of the Iraqi Journalistic Freedoms Observatory, said, ”We do not deny there is an incitement to violence by some media outlets, but we consider the suspension of licenses of 10 satellite channels a blow for democracy.”

Meanwhile, Egyptian newspaper Egypt Independent was shut down due to financial problems. Al-Masry Al-Youm, the paper’s parent company, prevented the final issue from being printed because it contained strong criticism of the government and the company itself. Al-Masry Al-Youm has previously censored the paper’s critical content. Amira Ahmed, Egypt Independent’s former deputy editor, said, “For Al Masry Al Youm, media freedom does have boundaries – but for us, those limits didn’t exist.” Egypt Independent has made the issue, which is its 50th edition, available online.

Photo Credit: Reuters

The State Department’s 2012 Human Rights Report on Syria noted a number of human rights problems, the most significant of which were “the regime’s massive, countrywide attacks and strategic use of citizen killings to intimidate and control; specific targeting of activists and their families; and using civilians, including children, as human shields. The government denied citizens’ rights to change their government peacefully. The government denied citizens the right to practice freedom of speech, mobility, association, access to legal representation, and medical assistance.” In addition, “Impunity was pervasive and deeply embedded… Corruption was rampant throughout the government, and the judiciary lacked independence.”

Although President Bashar al-Assad’s government lifted emergency law in April, security forces continued to conduct police and military operations against civilians. The government used “indiscriminate and deadly force” to quell protests and attacked civilians in locations like schools, places of worship, breadlines, and hospitals. Multiple human rights organization and media reports indicate that the government specifically targeted individuals supporting or connected to the opposition movement. Torture, sometimes leading to death , was used on detainees and prisoners. In 2011, the government established a commission to investigate allegations of torture or abuse, but the commission did not operate during 2012.

Nongovernmental actors also committed human rights abuses. The report states, “According to reports from international media and human rights organizations, armed opposition groups engaged in abuses, including kidnapping, detention, car bombings, summary execution and torture of security force members, government supporters, and persons identified as pro-government militia members, as well as forced evacuations from homes based on sectarian identity.”

Syrians also lacked numerous civil liberties, including freedoms of speech, press, and assembly. The government had broad discretion to determine what constituted illegal expression, leading to citizens’ inability to criticize the government without fear of reprisal. The government arrested and executed foreign and domestic journalists, and opposition forces kidnapped and executed journalists expressing pro-government view. The government also maintained control over news content due to its ownership of many news organizations.

For full event notes continue reading, or click here for a PDF.

Susan Corke opened the event by saying that this is a moment of opportunity in Turkey not seen in years, and will hopefully be part of a positive transition. The Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) said it will withdraw its militants by May 8. Corke acknowledged that the peace process will probably be fragile, but said there real hope that the parties will join together in a common cause to end the conflict. She added that real change will require real commitment on the part of Turkey’s leaders to fulfill Turkey’s democratic process as there is a real danger that an authoritarian model could emerge.

Howard Eissenstat called Turkey a conundrum. In many ways it is an unmitigated success: booming economy, remarkable educational system, incredible cultural dynamism, and democracy that has deep roots. Yet he said the problems are nonetheless extremely grave. Eissenstat outlined three sets of problems, saying that two are deeply rooted and difficult to address while the third is easier. First, Turkey is an illiberal democracy—Turkish national culture is imbued with an allergic reaction to diversity and a militarism that feels like the first half of the 20th century. He said this has made it very difficult for groups who are not seen as part of the national whole to freely voice their identity. Eissenstat said that Turkey’s cultural intolerance that has improved, but that it would be difficult find an Armenian or Kurd that would say that they feel like full members of society. Second, Turkey’s Freedom and Justice Party’s (AKP) remarkable success as a political machine has caused Turkish freedoms to be constrained by the patronage associated with it: “If you go up against it, you get hurt; if you make peace with it, you have a pathway to success.” He added that the interweaving of the party and society is producing a democratically elected single-party state, and that there are no easy answers. Eissenstat said the third area was the legal realm. Turkey has recognized that it needs to increase freedom of association, religion, and expression, as demonstrated by its multiple judicial reform packages. However, he said that Turkey seems to be engaged in a process of bargaining with the international community, trying to find the point where it will stop complaining. He concluded that the AKP will continue to consolidate power, making him pessimistic for the future.

Yigal Schleifer provided a broader look for the last couple years. He noted that after 12 years of control, the AKP is still able to present itself as the new kid on the block and face of reform, even though it has in many ways it has become the state it once opposed. He said that Erdogan and the AKP have shown a great knack for shifting quickly when necessary. Two years ago they seemed to be at a crossroads with the EU process looking dim, the “zero friends with neighbors” policy falling apart, and worsened relations with the U.S. The AKP took a hard, nationalist turn to the right, Turkey seemed to take a step back on the Kurdish issue, and there was regression in freedom of expression and media. Schleifer said it was a discouraging picture, but became a moment of reinvention for the AKP. They injected new energy EU process, hardened and sharpened their foreign policies, and most significantly, pursued a new Kurdish opening. Schleifer attributed the change to Turkey returning to the Cold War approach of seeking a western alliance in an uncertain world. It embraced Europe economically and realized that its ambitions were being hindered by how it was treating the Kurds. Schleifer added that the emerging ‘Kurdish crescent,’ and the AKP’s desire to make better inroads in southeast Turkey to support constitutional efforts, encouraged Erdogan to deal with the issue sooner than later. He said it is hard to know what to expect because Erdogan’s foreign policy includes strengthening ties with NATO vying for leadership of a new non-aligned movement. On the domestic front, he said that the AKP is good at making its policies look good, but they often include self-interested power grabs. The biggest example is the current constitutional process. Turkey needs a new constitution that enshrines civil liberties against protecting the state, but the new presidency has become the primary issue. Meanwhile, Turkey’s domestic record on freedom of expression and control of the press is deteriorating.

Corke began the Q&A by asking the panelists to map out specific recommendations for how Turkey could get to where it needs to be, and what role the U.S. and the West could play. Eissenstat said that it was important for Turkey’s friends to address cultural issues because Turkey is movable. He specifically said that when Turkey announces its fourth package of judicial reforms western allies should tell it to “finish the job.” He added that Erdogan often ends up doing exactly what his critics ask, so the West should stop taking his ruffled feathers so seriously—name and shame can actually work with him. Eissenstat recommended that President Obama mention that the U.S. hopes Turkey will address constitutional articles that are damaging freedom of expression. Schleifer said that Turkey has 21st century ambitions and 19th century problems, such as the Kurdish and Cyprus issues. He argued that Europe needs to always realize what an important role the EU process plays for Turkey, and that everyone should be involved with helping in the new Kurdish process, which is much bigger than Turkey. He said the West should stop worrying about whether the AKP is too Islamist and realize that its various structural issues are Turkish and would be problems for whomever was in power in Turkey. Corke recommended keeping the EU accession process alive because it was an engine of reform and the criteria by which Turkey would like to be judged.

In response to audience questions, Eissenstat said that Erdogan could do a remarkable thing in the area of ethnic intolerance given his solid Sunni credentials. He said that Turkish leaders ultimately don’t believe Turkey will become part of the EU but the process is valuable for all sides as Turkey and the EU can still grow together and get people into the room. Schleifer agreed, doubted that Turkey even wants full membership, and predicted a privileged partnership. He suggested reform might be possible without the EU process. The panelists agreed that Turkey needs to be motivated from within, not merely pushed from the outside. Schleifer noted that there is significant public enmity between Turkey and Israel and predicted that their relationship would be similar to that Israel’s with the Gulf countries. Eissenstat said that Erdogan realized that his stance on Israel-Palestine was not serving Turkey’s interest. He called the PKK-Turkey negations a potential game changer that should be supported but was pessimistic about their ultimate success, because if they are not completed before the new constitution is in place, Erdogan can turn his back, leaving the Kurds holding nothing. He added that concessions on Cyprus had been possible but are now unlikely. Both panelists called the AKP’s foreign policy ad-hoc and amateurish compared to its domestic program, but Eissenstat noted that though Syria is sucking the region in Turkey has avoided it better than others thus far. Schleifer said the opposition parties have not kept up and need to make serious changes. Eissenstat added that some blame can be put on the increasingly fawning nature of the press toward the AKP, which has intimidated the media with arrests and firings, leaving newspapers without hard-hitting reporting and columns.

Photo Credit: AsiaNews/Agencies

The State Department’s annual report on human rights in Lebanon described the country’s most significant human rights abuses as “torture and abuse by government and other security forces, harsh prison and detention center conditions, and limitations on freedom of movement for Palestinian refugees.” Also of concern were the harassment of Syrian political activists and refugees, a judiciary subject to political pressure, restrictions on freedoms of speech and press, societal, legal, and economic discrimination against women, and other issues.

The State Department noted there were no reports that the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings, or were involved in disappearances during the year. Conditions in Lebanese prisons were defined as “harsh and in some prisons… life threatening,” and the report noted that “the law does not specifically prohibit all forms of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, and there were reports that government officials employed such practices.” In addition, the State Department claimed that “the government arbitrarily arrested and detained persons,” but that “there were no reports of political prisoners or detainees.”

Freedom of speech and press are provided for under Lebanese law, with some restrictions for “exceptional circumstances,” but citizens are legally prohibited from criticizing the president and foreign leaders in public. The State Department report noted that an independent media was “active and expressed a wide variety of views,” but that the majority of media outlets have political affiliations making it difficult to operate in areas controlled by opposing political parties.

The report also noted that while freedom of assembly is provided under the law, “the government sometimes restricted this right”. In addition, the Lebanese government put restrictions on the internal movement and foreign travel of Palestinian refugees. Another area of concern in the report was the rights of women, who “suffered discrimination under the law and in practice.” Additionally, corruption was reported: “officials often engaged in corrupt practices with impunity,” and racial discrimination was an issue: “a February 2011 report…identified a widespread pattern of discrimination against individuals who did not appear ethnically Lebanese.”

photo credit: AFP/Getty Images

The State Department released its 2012 Human Rights Practices Report for Tunisia, which details a number of challenges including “security force laxity regarding extremist crimes, the use of excessive force during protester arrests, and some constraints on freedom of the press.”

The security sector and entire judicial process remain flawed.  While good guidelines are generally set for most of these processes, the application of these rules was notably flawed at almost every step of these procedures, from arrests, to prolonged detentions and “deplorable conditions”, to improper trials and executive meddling with the judiciary.  While there are no political prisoners in Tunisia, the system’s impropriety was most notable when harshly dealing with protestors, opposition activists, and secularists, while cases of violence and vandalism against religious extremists and associated groups, like the Leagues for the Protection of the Revolution, were often not carried through to prosecution.

Despite major reforms to ensure freedoms of speech and the press in 2011, problems remain.  Reporters were repeatedly threatened and harassed while attempting to cover rallies and protests, while freedom of speech has largely been constrained in dealing with religion.  Cultural events deemed offensive by religiously conservative Salafis were attacked on multiple occasions, in some instances ending in violence after government officials failed to respond quickly.

The national state of emergency, which includes a requirement to register any rally, protest or demonstration of more than three people, three days in advance, was extended throughout 2012, and an overall ban on marches down Habib Bourguiba Avenue, the main avenue in Tunis, was also instituted and later repealed during 2012.  These conditions were widely condemned by human rights organizations as an assault on Tunisians’ freedom of assembly.

Women faced significant barriers to economic and political participation, though significant measures were taken to address the challenges of domestic abuse and violence against women and children, despite past taboos. Workers rights to unionize and to strike were widely upheld.  Despite some tensions, including violent demonstrations, between the ruling Ennahda Party and Tunisia’s main labor union UGTT, efforts to maintain a working relationship between the two have prevailed.

Photo Credit: Getty Images

Television satirist Bassem Youssef has been arrested on charges of insulting President Mohamed Morsi, denigrating Islam, and spreading false news with the goal of disturbing order. Complaints against Youssef were filed by 12 citizens in early March following an episode of Youssef’s show in which he mocked Morsi’s interview with TV anchor Amr El-Leithy. The prosecutor-general issued a warrant for Youssef’s arrest on Saturday, and Youssef turned himself in for questioning. He was released on bail Sunday, but he may still face charges.

The arrest has raised concerns about a crackdown on freedom of expression in Egypt. Heba Morayef, Egypt Director at Human Rights Watch, called the arrest “an escalation in an attempt to restrict space for critical expression.” Deputy Chief Prosecutor Hassan Yassin defended the arrest, saying, “There must be guidelines for those working in the media to observe so as not violate the law.”

For full event notes continue reading, or click here for the PDF.

Lara Jakes began the panel discussion by saying “every day Iraqis look around and think about life before 2003.” She added that while many Shia and Kurds are happy that Saddam Hussein is gone, they are still worried about “rampant violence” that is occurring across the country every day. Jakes noted that the lives of these Iraqis and the future of the country will probably “drop off people’s radar” once the anniversary is over, “but I hope it won’t.”

Moderator Doug Wilson then asked if it was fair that the press is blamed for its pre-war coverage. Greg Jaffe acknowledged that “we failed,” and that many in the media had “no clue” what they were getting into. He said that all foreign policy media had changed as a result of the Iraq War, including how the press now covers the conflict in Syria. Jaffe said that there is now a “much greater sense of how complicated and messy the world is.”

Turning to Colonel David Lapan, Wilson asked about the program that embeds journalists with combat units. Lapan said that the idea of the program wasn’t new, but the scale at which it was done was new. The program was expanded in large part because of “pressure from the press,” and the military’s “desire to shape” the message. Lapan specifically noted, however, that the military did not want to censor, and that all rules created for members of the press were for their safety or to protect operational security.

Lieutenant Colonel Michael D. Jason followed Lapan and discussed his experience with embedded press in the Iraq War. In answering the main question of the event, “Who was shaped by whom?,” Jason said it was his personal opinion that the military had changed as a result of the media. “We reorganized our structure,” he said. The military added public relations offices and created new jobs to liaise with the press. Greg Jaffe stated that embedding the press is “a great program.” It is “a remarkable opportunity for journalists to get that access,” he added.

Lara Jakes pointed out that not all embed experiences were productive. She said that during a few times she embedded it felt like “a dog and pony show…everyone was clearly scripted…they had their talking points.” Acknowledging that she’s had “some amazing embeds” as well, she added that it was important for journalists not to forget the other side of the story, “the Iraqi side of the story.”

Wilson then asked the panel about the effect the media had on the military leadership. Jaffe said that General Petraeus was aware of how to shape media coverage and that “media was a part of the battlefield… you had to be effectively engaged in that part.” Further commenting on Petraeus, Jaffe said that, for most of the war, he was very effective at shaping media coverage. Jaffe added that after President Bush “lost credibility” to discuss the war in 2006, “the only credible spokesman” was General Petraues. Jaffe also commented that the Obama Administration has worked to reverse this trend of military leadership being in “the spotlight.” Doug Wilson commented that it is important to understand “media is a part of… policy,” and no longer just reports on it.

In her closing comments, Lara Jakes stated that there wasn’t enough discussion in the media about how Iraqis dealt with the war, how the Iraqi government was formed, and the issues Iraqis would face after the U.S. left. In addition, she said that many Iraqis “expected their lives to be better,” after the war, but that today there is “profound sadness and disappointment,” and this disappointment and frustration with the U.S. has canvassed the region. Greg Jaffe said that there was also poor media coverage of our veterans when they return from the war. He acknowledged that it was difficult to cover veterans who were returning and that the American public didn’t have a strong connection with the volunteer force. This reality “produces cartoonish studies,” Jaffe said, where a veteran is either labeled as a “hero” or a “PTSD adult.”

During a Q&A session, Colonel David Lapan responded to a question about international media in Iraq, saying that from the beginning there was a quota for international imbeds. Jakes said, “so many people forget about the Iraqi reporters,” and commended how far the media has progressed in Iraq. For the final question of the discussion Doug Wilson asked who the panelists thought were journalism heroes of the Iraq War. Lara Jakes named Anthony Shadid, whom she said was a “lyrical writer who put his fingers on all of the issues.” Greg Jaffe also named Shadid in addition to Dexter Filkins. Colonel David Lapan named journalist C.J. Chivers, and Wilson took the final word in commending Jaffe, who he said is “a leader” for his coverage of veterans returning home.