Dear Gulnara,
Following our Twitter conversation last week, I am sending below the details of some human rights issues in Uzbekistan which can and should be addressed. All these matters fall under your purview as Uzbekistan’s permanent representative to the United Nations in Geneva.
Given the nature and scale of the problem, it is difficult to know where to begin with this, but what I’ve tried to do below is highlight some general issues, provide lists of some individuals and then go into greater detail for a few of their cases. I hope you will look into these matters and the specific cases mentioned and respond appropriately as you promised to do.
Of course, these are just a few examples of human rights abuses in Uzbekistan that are all too common and that that deserve to be addressed. If we start with these and make some progress, perhaps you would look in to other cases as well.
In preparing this text, I have relied on detailed reporting from United Nations bodies, government reports on human rights practices, and the reports of leading human rights groups. I have quoted from them extensively and linked to the original materials.
I hope this conversation and dialogue leads to some concrete improvements for the individual victims below.
Regards,
Andrew
(emailed to Gulnara Karimova on 12 December 2012. Other readers can find out more about the Twitter conversation between Gulnara Karimova and me in this RFE/RL article and this New Europe interview.)
Showing posts with label censorship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label censorship. Show all posts
Wednesday, 12 December 2012
Tuesday, 5 May 2009
Sri Lanka's Plight Highlighted at World Press Freedom Day
Attending the World Press Freedom Day conference in 2009, I was inspired by one speech in particular, and I was glad to get permission to be the first to publish it. The following appeared on my Reuters AlertNet blog on 5 May 2009.
=======
I just returned from the World Press Freedom Day conference in Doha, Qatar. It was a fairly typical affair as these sorts of conferences go -- until the final award ceremony, when murdered Sri Lankan journalist Lasantha Wickrematunge was posthumously given the World Press Freedom Prize 2009.
His niece, Natalie Samarasinghe, read out a statement from his widow, Sonali Samarasinghe Wickrematunge, which was so forceful and so impressive, I feel it deserves a much wider audience than the few hundred people who gave it a standing ovation in the room on Sunday. With permission, I am publishing it in full below.
=======
I just returned from the World Press Freedom Day conference in Doha, Qatar. It was a fairly typical affair as these sorts of conferences go -- until the final award ceremony, when murdered Sri Lankan journalist Lasantha Wickrematunge was posthumously given the World Press Freedom Prize 2009.
His niece, Natalie Samarasinghe, read out a statement from his widow, Sonali Samarasinghe Wickrematunge, which was so forceful and so impressive, I feel it deserves a much wider audience than the few hundred people who gave it a standing ovation in the room on Sunday. With permission, I am publishing it in full below.
Thursday, 16 October 2008
Witness to Absurdity
Given what I've written about Uzbekistan in recent years -- and assuming the visa-issuing officials in Tashkent have heard of Google -- there was never much chance of me getting into the country under normal circumstances. But an opportunity came in autumn of 2008, when I was able to go as part of an EU-sponsored conference. The experience of visiting Uzbekistan again after five or six years away was welcome yet disturbing. This is the piece I wrote upon return, for Transitions Online on 16 October 2008.
=======
Arriving at Tashkent airport is not a pleasant experience. For foreigners, it means three or four hours in the tumbling scrum of Uzbek customs and immigration, with hundreds of people cramming up against each other to get through the paperwork. It’s not just the chaotic developing world, “this passport control is taking forever” sort of thing, but a literal shoving match for hours on end. It would be hard to imagine anything worse, but then, you don’t really have to: you just have to look at the pitched battle at the passport control booth for Uzbekistan’s own citizens.
=======
Arriving at Tashkent airport is not a pleasant experience. For foreigners, it means three or four hours in the tumbling scrum of Uzbek customs and immigration, with hundreds of people cramming up against each other to get through the paperwork. It’s not just the chaotic developing world, “this passport control is taking forever” sort of thing, but a literal shoving match for hours on end. It would be hard to imagine anything worse, but then, you don’t really have to: you just have to look at the pitched battle at the passport control booth for Uzbekistan’s own citizens.
Wednesday, 6 December 2006
Online Iran
From my Reuters AlertNet blog on 6 December 2006.
=======
The online media in Iran have been under pressure for some time, and yet, there are also signs that the government understands the value of new media. Reporters Without Borders yesterday released a statement, noting that both YouTube and the New York Times websites were both being blocked inside the country. Wikipedia's English and Kurdish versions have been blocked for a time, and the blacklist is growing in the shadow of a general ban on high-speed Internet access imposed two months ago.
"The government is trying to create a digital border to stop culture and news coming from abroad -- a vision of the Net which is worrying for the country's future", the organisation said. "But, more generally it is a threat to the worldwide web which, instead of aiding understanding between peoples could be changed into a medium of intolerance. The Iranian government policy is not an isolated case."
Still, at least one move suggests the government "gets it" when it comes to online media. President Ahmedinejad has his own blog in four languages.
=======
The online media in Iran have been under pressure for some time, and yet, there are also signs that the government understands the value of new media. Reporters Without Borders yesterday released a statement, noting that both YouTube and the New York Times websites were both being blocked inside the country. Wikipedia's English and Kurdish versions have been blocked for a time, and the blacklist is growing in the shadow of a general ban on high-speed Internet access imposed two months ago.
"The government is trying to create a digital border to stop culture and news coming from abroad -- a vision of the Net which is worrying for the country's future", the organisation said. "But, more generally it is a threat to the worldwide web which, instead of aiding understanding between peoples could be changed into a medium of intolerance. The Iranian government policy is not an isolated case."
Still, at least one move suggests the government "gets it" when it comes to online media. President Ahmedinejad has his own blog in four languages.
Wednesday, 22 March 2006
Uzbekistan: A Lifeboat for the Media
This piece originally appeared in Transitions Online on 22 March 2006. About a year after the Andijan masacre, Uzbekistan had become a media void, and it was time to protect the country's independent journalists from total extinction. Sadly, as I write this in April 2011, it still is.
=======
The fallout from last year's massacre in the Uzbek city of Andijan continues throughout the country and throughout the region. Since 13 May 2005 – when state security forces fired on mostly unarmed civilian demonstrators, killing hundreds, perhaps even 1,000 – the regime's paranoia about independent public activity and its desperate drive to control information have accelerated with no apparent bounds.
Along with nongovernmental organizations and human-rights activists, the media has been a primary target. The regime has openly denounced journalists, both foreign and domestic, who reported on the massacre and the subsequent crackdown on witnesses and their families. Several international news organizations have come under harsh criticism, from the BBC, CNN, and the Associated Press to the Moscow-based service Ferghana.ru. Uzbek First Deputy General Prosecutor Anvar Nabiev called journalists from these media outlets "hyenas and jackals searching for carrion," and accused them of having known about the uprising plot beforehand and launching an "information war against Uzbekistan … simultaneously with [the] terrorist aggression."
Photos of foreign journalists in Uzbekistan have been featured on Uzbek national television's main evening news program in reports headed "overview of participation of foreign media in the events of 13 May 2005." Many Uzbek journalists have been forced into exile, though their families and friends still face threats back home. Most foreign media have had to suspend news gathering in Uzbekistan, and the regime continues to broadly reject applications for accreditation of foreign journalists and foreign news bureaus. The passage of a new media law in February, which makes it illegal to work as a reporter in Uzbekistan without accreditation from the Foreign Ministry, codified the practice. Following the BBC, Internews, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and others in past months, the latest outlet to have its accreditation cancelled was Deutsche Welle, on 16 March.
=======
The fallout from last year's massacre in the Uzbek city of Andijan continues throughout the country and throughout the region. Since 13 May 2005 – when state security forces fired on mostly unarmed civilian demonstrators, killing hundreds, perhaps even 1,000 – the regime's paranoia about independent public activity and its desperate drive to control information have accelerated with no apparent bounds.
Along with nongovernmental organizations and human-rights activists, the media has been a primary target. The regime has openly denounced journalists, both foreign and domestic, who reported on the massacre and the subsequent crackdown on witnesses and their families. Several international news organizations have come under harsh criticism, from the BBC, CNN, and the Associated Press to the Moscow-based service Ferghana.ru. Uzbek First Deputy General Prosecutor Anvar Nabiev called journalists from these media outlets "hyenas and jackals searching for carrion," and accused them of having known about the uprising plot beforehand and launching an "information war against Uzbekistan … simultaneously with [the] terrorist aggression."
Photos of foreign journalists in Uzbekistan have been featured on Uzbek national television's main evening news program in reports headed "overview of participation of foreign media in the events of 13 May 2005." Many Uzbek journalists have been forced into exile, though their families and friends still face threats back home. Most foreign media have had to suspend news gathering in Uzbekistan, and the regime continues to broadly reject applications for accreditation of foreign journalists and foreign news bureaus. The passage of a new media law in February, which makes it illegal to work as a reporter in Uzbekistan without accreditation from the Foreign Ministry, codified the practice. Following the BBC, Internews, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and others in past months, the latest outlet to have its accreditation cancelled was Deutsche Welle, on 16 March.
Friday, 23 May 2003
Internet Censors in China Loosening Their Grip
This article originally appeared in Online Journalism Review on 23 May 2003.
=======
A researcher tracking Internet censorship trends in China says government monitors are allowing more political commentary than they have in the past.
"Look at that! Look at that!" Gao Zheng says, tapping the glass screen on his monitor excitedly.
All I see is a string of Chinese characters, each one as incomprehensible to me as every other. I can tell it's a Web site, but that's about it.
"That lasted there over two hours," he says, falling back into his chair. "I can't believe it. Somebody's not paying attention."
Looking a little closer, I can see he's tapping at a threaded discussion forum. "I've got to print that one off," he says, pulling himself back to the keyboard.
A few minutes later, a refreshed screen reveals a different set of characters. The ephemeral pixel proof is gone. "That's really surprising," says Gao, putting the printout in a blue folder crammed full of similar screen shots. "Two hours and 20 minutes isn't quite a record for that kind of thing, but it's much longer than I expected."
As he closes his folder, another piece of the murky puzzle of online censorship in China falls into place.
=======
A researcher tracking Internet censorship trends in China says government monitors are allowing more political commentary than they have in the past.
"Look at that! Look at that!" Gao Zheng says, tapping the glass screen on his monitor excitedly.
All I see is a string of Chinese characters, each one as incomprehensible to me as every other. I can tell it's a Web site, but that's about it.
"That lasted there over two hours," he says, falling back into his chair. "I can't believe it. Somebody's not paying attention."
Looking a little closer, I can see he's tapping at a threaded discussion forum. "I've got to print that one off," he says, pulling himself back to the keyboard.
A few minutes later, a refreshed screen reveals a different set of characters. The ephemeral pixel proof is gone. "That's really surprising," says Gao, putting the printout in a blue folder crammed full of similar screen shots. "Two hours and 20 minutes isn't quite a record for that kind of thing, but it's much longer than I expected."
As he closes his folder, another piece of the murky puzzle of online censorship in China falls into place.
Wednesday, 5 February 2003
Belarus: Crossed Signals
I wrote this from Minsk for TIME magazine on 5 February 2003.
=======
Minsk just can't seem to make up its mind. One minute, Belarus is pushing Russian media out of its territory; the next minute, it is declaring undying love for its bigger Slav brother, hoping to join Russia in a single political entity. Often criticised for human rights abuses and interference with free speech, the Belarusian authorities are now again under fire from a wide range of critics, including Russian Democratic Party Yabloko leader Grigory Yavlinsky, for closing three Russian radio stations at the start of the year. Minsk said it would replace the closed stations — Golos Rossii, Mayak and Yunost — with domestic programming.
The authorities have also moved to cut the coverage of the Russian TV channel RTR by 30% from 1 February, and they are further demanding that all radio and TV stations re-register before this summer, which many fear is a policy aimed at reducing the number of broadcasts from Russia. Again, the desire to promote national broadcasting was given as the reason, but many have their suspicions about the government's true intentions.
Those suspicions remain because, quite simply, Russian media matter in Minsk.
=======
Minsk just can't seem to make up its mind. One minute, Belarus is pushing Russian media out of its territory; the next minute, it is declaring undying love for its bigger Slav brother, hoping to join Russia in a single political entity. Often criticised for human rights abuses and interference with free speech, the Belarusian authorities are now again under fire from a wide range of critics, including Russian Democratic Party Yabloko leader Grigory Yavlinsky, for closing three Russian radio stations at the start of the year. Minsk said it would replace the closed stations — Golos Rossii, Mayak and Yunost — with domestic programming.
The authorities have also moved to cut the coverage of the Russian TV channel RTR by 30% from 1 February, and they are further demanding that all radio and TV stations re-register before this summer, which many fear is a policy aimed at reducing the number of broadcasts from Russia. Again, the desire to promote national broadcasting was given as the reason, but many have their suspicions about the government's true intentions.
Those suspicions remain because, quite simply, Russian media matter in Minsk.
Tuesday, 5 November 2002
Tunisia Stifles Web Publications
This article ran in Online Journalism Review on 5 November 2002.
=======
Tunisian President Zine al-Abidine ben Ali brooks no online opposition; on top of other heavy-handed efforts against the Web, his regime has now jailed its first cyber-dissident...
Zouhair Yahyaoui attained the unfortunate distinction this summer of becoming Tunisia’s first Internet journalist to be imprisoned for his online work. It’s pretty clear he won’t be the last, if President Zine al-Abidine ben Ali’s harsh approach to online publishing continues.
Yahyaoui’s path to prison played out as a self-fulfilling prophecy to such an extent that it would be farce if it weren’t tragedy. His TUNeZINE criticism of the brutal regime was as creative as it was blunt and honest.
=======
Tunisian President Zine al-Abidine ben Ali brooks no online opposition; on top of other heavy-handed efforts against the Web, his regime has now jailed its first cyber-dissident...
Zouhair Yahyaoui attained the unfortunate distinction this summer of becoming Tunisia’s first Internet journalist to be imprisoned for his online work. It’s pretty clear he won’t be the last, if President Zine al-Abidine ben Ali’s harsh approach to online publishing continues.
Yahyaoui’s path to prison played out as a self-fulfilling prophecy to such an extent that it would be farce if it weren’t tragedy. His TUNeZINE criticism of the brutal regime was as creative as it was blunt and honest.
Tuesday, 16 April 2002
Censorship Wins Out
This is a piece I wrote for Online Journalism Review, which ran it on 16 April 2002. It's been republished in quite a number of places since, including a McGraw-Hill reader called 75 Arguments.
=======
Many journalists and activists have brought their struggle for democracy to the Internet but plenty of nasty regimes have learned to control the Net for their purposes...
A decade or so ago, it was all clear: the Internet was believed to be such a revolutionary new medium, so inherently empowering and democratizing, that old authoritarian regimes would crumble before it. What we've learned in the intervening years is that the Internet does not inevitably lead to democracy any more than it inevitably leads to great wealth.
=======
Many journalists and activists have brought their struggle for democracy to the Internet but plenty of nasty regimes have learned to control the Net for their purposes...
A decade or so ago, it was all clear: the Internet was believed to be such a revolutionary new medium, so inherently empowering and democratizing, that old authoritarian regimes would crumble before it. What we've learned in the intervening years is that the Internet does not inevitably lead to democracy any more than it inevitably leads to great wealth.
Tuesday, 8 January 2002
Back in the USSR
Online Journalism Review published this article on 8 January 2002. It looked at how the Uzbek regime was working to control print, broadcast and online media.
=======
Uzbekistan, America's new ally in the global war on terror, has suddenly attracted a flood of international correspondents covering the war in Afghanistan next door and they have been astonished by the media environment they have found.
The former Soviet republic is an authoritarian state with an approach to broadcast, print and online media reminiscent of the Brezhnev-era Soviet Union, if it had survived long enough to experience the Web.
Independent journalism is non-existent here. Censorship is pervasive, and the regime has taken steps to control the Internet as firmly as it controls the centralized printing presses and the TV stations. The country’s poverty insures that alternative media outlets cannot develop; forget Internet access: less than one percent of the population can even afford a daily newspaper.
=======
Uzbekistan, America's new ally in the global war on terror, has suddenly attracted a flood of international correspondents covering the war in Afghanistan next door and they have been astonished by the media environment they have found.
The former Soviet republic is an authoritarian state with an approach to broadcast, print and online media reminiscent of the Brezhnev-era Soviet Union, if it had survived long enough to experience the Web.
Independent journalism is non-existent here. Censorship is pervasive, and the regime has taken steps to control the Internet as firmly as it controls the centralized printing presses and the TV stations. The country’s poverty insures that alternative media outlets cannot develop; forget Internet access: less than one percent of the population can even afford a daily newspaper.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)