Ethiopian Reporter - Amharic Version

Recommendations

Info

26| My SAY In a study released in early April, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s Representative on Freedom of the Media, Dunja Mijatović, reported that 57 journalists are currently in prison in Turkey, mostly on the basis of the country’s anti-terrorism laws. With 11 more Turkish journalists also facing charges, the total number could soon double the records of Iran and China, each of which reportedly held 34 journalists in prison in December 2010. Indeed, Mijatović estimated that another 700-1,000 proceedings against journalists remain ongoing. Such a situation is intolerable anywhere, but particularly in a democracy that seeks European Union membership, and that recognizes freedom of expression as a fundamental right. Turkey’s behavior thus calls into question not only its desire but also its ability to commit to the values underlying the EU. Journalists linked to Kurdish or Marxist organizations have regularly been targeted under Turkey’s anti-terrorism laws, and the OSCE study found that they have faced some of the harshest punishments. One Kurdish journalist was sentenced to 166 years in prison. Others currently face – wait for it – 3,000-year sentences if convicted. The relative lack of scrutiny of Turkey’s treatment of journalists by many in the West has changed, however, owing to the recent waves of arrests in the so-called “Ergenekon” case. Numerous military officers and academics have been implicated in that case, which involves an alleged plot by secular ultra-nationalists to overthrow the Turkish government. The probe has now turned increasingly towards journalists. One of those accused of participating in the plot is the daily newspaper Milliyet’s investigative reporter Nedim Şener, whose work includes a book about links between security forces and the 2007 murder of Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink. The International Press Institute (IPI) named Şener a World Press Freedom Hero in 2010. Incarcerated following his arrest last month, he reportedly stands accused of belonging to an armed terrorist organization seeking to overthrow the government. Another journalist under fire is Ahmet Şık, who already faced prosecution for co-writing a book criticizing the government’s crackdown on the Ergenekon plot. Şık was said to be working on a book about the alleged influence of an Islamic group within Turkey’s police force, which authorities last month ordered confiscated before it could be printed. A common thread in all of the cases targeting journalists is that the alleged facts are shrouded in secrecy, and the authorities have declined to release any evidence of crimes or criminal organizations. Worse still, they have declined even to inform those brought before courts – sometimes in secret – or their attorneys of the charges they face. Indeed, journalists caught in this Kafkaesque affair can expect to spend years behind bars before Journalists linked to Kurdish or Marxist organizations have regularly been targeted under Turkey’s antiterrorism laws, and the OSCE study found that they have faced some of the harshest punishments. One Kurdish journalist was sentenced to 166 years in prison. Others currently face – wait for it – 3,000-year sentences if convicted. www.ethiopianreporter.com being allowed to respond to the accusations against them. A climate of fear escalates with each raid and arrest. Meanwhile, Turkish authorities affirm the country’s commitment to press freedom, even as they impugn the motives of those who exercise it. Given that so many journalists have been jailed, and that all of them have been critical of the government, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that journalists are being targeted because of their work. Such concern has been voiced not only by pressfreedom groups such as IPI, and journalists, like the Freedom for Journalists Platform (an umbrella group representing local and national media organizations in Turkey), but also by respected international institutions. The United States’ Mission to the OSCE and the European Commission have joined Mijatović in calling on Turkey’s authorities to stop their intimidation of the media immediately, and to uphold basic OSCE media freedom commitments. The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has called on Turkey to guarantee freedom of opinion and expression. Even Turkey’s president, Abdullah Gül, recently called for “prosecutors and courts to be more diligent in pursuing their responsibilities, and to act in a way that does not harm the honor and rights of the people.” Turkey plays a pivotal, bridge-building role between East and West, and the country has been praised for demonstrating that democracy can The Reporter | Saturday |April 30, 2011 turkish journalism behind bars By alison BeThel mCKenZie and sTeven m. ellis coexist with Islam. But the arrests of so many journalists are eroding this image. The right of journalists to cover sensitive topics, including national security, is fundamental. Those who do not engage in criminal activity should not face arrest, imprisonment, or any other form of harassment or intimidation for doing their job. Those accused of criminal activity must be given due process and a fair trial. Evidence must be provided, and the accused must be presented with the charges they face and the opportunity to defend themselves. Far from being defamatory subversives, journalists who investigate and criticize their government’s actions demonstrate true patriotism, because no democracy can survive without the open and independent assessment of public policies that journalists provide. If Turkey, a major regional power with an ancient cultural heritage, truly wishes to be welcomed into Europe, to take its rightful place on the world stage, and, indeed, to remain a democracy, its leaders must not hold freedom of the press in contempt. Ed’s Note: Alison Bethel McKenzie is Director of the International Press Institute (IPI). Steven M. Ellis is IPI Press Freedom Adviser. The article was provided to The Reporter by Project Syndicate the world’s pre-eminent source of original op-ed commentaries. With a unique collaboration of distinguished opinion makers from every corner of the globe Project Syndicate provides incisive perspectives by those who are shaping politics, economics, science, and culture. Invitation to Bid Environmentalists Development Association - Ethiopia (EDAE) invites eligible and competent contractors for laying pipes that will be supplied by our association and for supplying the necessary material, equipment and labour the construction of manholes, collecting chamber, pressure reduction tanker, reservoir and river crossing points in East Wollega Zone, Gudeyya Bila District. Interested Bidders may obtain bid documents from the office of EDAE in Bole Sub City Kebele 12/13 House No. 316/3, Office No. 402 during office hours upon presentation of contractor category BC/ GC 7 or above certificate, valid licence and TIN and VAT registration certificates. Bidders should submit their financial and technical proposals separately in a sealed envelope on or before May 6, 2011 until 5 pm local time. Bids received after the closing date will not be considered. EDAE reserves the right to accept or reject in part or full any or all the offers without assigning any reason whatsoever. The bid will be opened on May 7, 2011 at 10 am local time in the presence of bidders or their legal representatives. . Further information can be obtained through the telephone numbers 0911 615171, 0910 62829, 0911411255
The Reporter | Saturday |April 30, 2011 the achilles’ heel... terrorists responsible for the attacks, massive military operations in Afghanistan to eliminate the al-Qaeda terrorist networks led by Osama bin Laden, and the adoption of multifaceted legal provisions against terrorists and their sympathizers worldwide [Gordon 2002]. In the history of terrorism, the September 11 attacks were the most significant event, because it altered the structures of inter-state relations, transformed perceptions of security, redefined the identities of friends and enemies in world politics, restructured the criteria of state-citizen-resident relations, and reprioritised the mission of public governance. At the international level, the United Nations immediately passed Security Council Resolution 1373, calling on all states to prevent and suppress the financing of all terrorist attacks, criminalize the provision or collection of funds for terrorists, freeze funds and assets of individuals involved in terrorism, and so on [UNSC 2001]. This resolution also requires all states to exchange information regarding terrorist networks, false travel documents, traffic in sensitive materials, and communications technologies used by terrorist groups. In the United States, the national government has adopted a series of anti-terrorism measures since September 11, including the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act, Airport Security Federalization Act, Bio-Terrorism Response Act, Preparedness Against Domestic Terrorism Act, Aviation Security Enhancement Act, Airline Security Act, Bio-Terrorism Preparedness Act, and United States Security Act. One of the most important legal provisions is the so-called USA PATRIOT ACT (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act, signed by the President on October 26, 2001. Another significant anti-terrorist measure adopted in the United States after September 11 was the creation of the Office of Homeland Security, which aimed to “develop and coordinate the implementation of a comprehensive national strategy to secure the United States from terrorist threats or attacks” [Wermuth 2002, 31]. Other related organizations and initiatives have also emerged, including the Anti-Terrorism Task Forces, Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, Citizen Corps, and so on [White House 2002 a]. In the case of developing countries, the United Nations’ Security Council Resolution 1373, adopted after September 11, required these nations to comply with its provisions and strategies to eradicate terrorist groups and networks, refrain from any form of support to such groups and networks, and share and exchange information in this regard [UNSC 2001]. Some developing countries have also adopted their own anti-terrorist measures. In particular, following the September 11 event, India introduced the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (2001), which broadens the definition of terrorism and empowers law enforcement agencies to investigate and punish terrorist activities. Ethiopia, being a frequent victim of terrorist attacks beginning with the failed assassination attempt on Egyptian President Mubarak in Addis Ababa in 1995 and the devastating ones in Jijiga, Dire Dawa, Addis Ababa (Ghion Hotel, Tigrai Hotel, Wabi Shebelle Hotel, etc.) in 2001/2002, introduced, an antiterrorism legislation in 2009. This belated bill has been criticized as draconian by many critics at home and abroad, on the one hand, and too little, too late, by the families and friends of the victims of those terrorist atrocities, on the other. The Indonesian government adopted a controversial anti-terrorism bill that would provide expansive power to its security forces to manage radical religious groups [Asmarani 2002]. The Malaysian government has promised to cooperate with the United States in information sharing, military operations, intelligence, and law enforcement. In terms of global support to the American anti-terrorist campaign, 23 countries have agreed to host U.S. forces to conduct military operations, 89 countries have granted overflight authority, 76 countries have approved landing rights, and 142 have issued orders to freeze the assets of suspected terrorist organizations [White House 2002b]. Anti-Terrorism Laws and Other Similar Initiatives and Their Critical Impacts on People’s Rights and Responsibilities First, with regard to people’s civil rights--especially the right to privacy and other freedoms from state interference--it is observed that the anti-terrorism legislation adopted after September 11, especially the American PATRIOT Act, has significant consequences. That act grants unprecedented powers to the executive branch to conduct surveillance, including gathering sensitive personal records, tracking e-mail and internet usage, monitoring financial transactions, practicing sneak-and-peek searches, and using roving wiretaps [Chang 2001]. Under Section 213 of the act, the sneak-and-peek searches of physical property can be conducted as normal criminal investigations without prior knowledge of the property owner [Levy 2001]. Similarly, under Section 215, sensitive personal records can be obtained by certifying their relevance to the investigation of international terrorism. The scope of such investigation may cover American citizens and permanent residents, and provisions can apply to non-terrorist activities such as drug cases, tax fraud, and other federal crimes [Dempsey 2001- 2]. Similarly, in Europe, the European Union’s justice and home affairs ministers decided in a meeting on September 20, 2001, to combat terrorism by assigning new surveillance powers to law enforcement agencies, especially by retaining data from e-mails, phone calls, faxes, and Internet usage [State Watch 2001]. In particular, the British government now requires all telecommunications providers to retain such data for 12 months. This is basically an initiative to put various modes of electronic communications under close surveillance or scrutiny by the government. The French National Assembly has also approved anti-terrorism provisions that allow more intensive investigation and monitoring of private communications. In the developing world, the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (2001) in India has expanded the power of the police to detain people without trial and to search premises and intercept vehicles without warrant. The adoption of a national ID card system has been discussed in the United States to enhance airport security, which could involve various biometric surveillance mechanisms such as digital fingerprinting, voice authentication techniques, handprint scans, computer registries, software data collection, and electronic retinal scans [Thierer 2001]. Although some experts consider such expanded surveillance power to be essential to counter-terrorism, others think that it violates people’s privacy and fails to provide for governmental accountability [Cave and Miezzkowski 2001]. In Britain, the home secretary recently reinforced the possibility of introducing such ID cards, which is opposed by human rights advocates on the grounds that such a provision would compromise people’s civil liberties [Johnston and Jones 2002]. In response to measures of intercepting communications and gathering information adopted after September 11, 2001, strong opposition has emerged from various privacy and civil liberties organizations, including those in Austria, Britain, Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands, which have urged the European Council to maintain people’s freedoms, privacy and civil liberties [Evers 2001]. Second, in terms of people’s political rights, critics argue that recent anti-terrorist provisions represent a threat to any form of political protest, movement, and activism. For example, according to Levy (2001), although the PATRIOT Act has not replaced the principle of separation of powers in America, it has The adoption of a national ID card system has been discussed in the United States to enhance airport security, which could involve various biometric surveillance mechanisms such as digital finger-printing, voice authentication techniques, handprint scans, computer registries, software data collection, and electronic retinal scans [Thierer 2001]. www.ethiopianreporter.com adversely affected the protection of due process under the Fifth Amendment and the safeguards against “unreasonable searches and seizures” guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. Similarly, Chang (2001) is concerned that Section 802 of the act compromises political freedoms (especially the freedom of speech and political association) because of its broad definition of domestic terrorism, which may cover political dissent, civil disobedience, and environmental activism and allow investigation and surveillance of such political activities and groups. In Australia, under the Security Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Act, the government can detain and question people for two days without legal representation. In Britain, although the government takes pride in the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act adopted after September 11, critics are concerned that under this law, people can be jailed if the home secretary suspects them of having terrorist connections and one may consider political protesters or demonstrators to be terrorists [Nag 2001]. Similarly, it is argued that under the new European Commission’s Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism (2001), the definition of terrorism- that is, any act of altering the political, economic or social structure and causing unlawful damages to state facilities--may cover various forms of political dissent and protests (such as antiwar or animal rights protests), thus undermining democratic freedoms [CEC 2001]. In the developing world, according to critics, some states have used the events of September 11 as a pretext to justify internal political repression in the name of controlling terrorism. For example, the proposed anti-terrorist bill in Indonesia has been criticized on the ground that it may undermine human rights and can be used by the elites to purge opposition voices [Asmarani 2002]. In India, there are serious reservations that its Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance may criminalize legitimate political protests of vulnerable social groups, serve the ruling party against the press and political opponents, and weaken the protection of civil liberties and human rights [POTO 2001]. In South Africa, Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania, the anti-terrorism laws established by these countries are said to be similar with other antiterrorism laws around the world such as the United States and United Kingdom on certain aspects like erosion of fundamental civil liberties. According to Klingner (2001), current anti-terrorism efforts in many developing countries are likely to adversely affect people’s participation in democratic governance and their peaceful resistance against varied forms of injustice. In addition, it is observed that, in the process of building an anti-terrorist coalition after September 11, the United States has extended military or financial assistance to some countries, including Pakistan, India, the Philippines, and Uzbekistan, which allegedly practice political repression, ethnic inequality, and/or caste discrimination [HRW 2002]. Specifically, there are restrictions on political parties under the military rule in Pakistan, continued caste discrimination in India, abuses of military and police powers in the Philippines, and a repressive political system in Uzbekistan [ibid]. Third, in relation to political rights, minority rights are also affected in different countries in the context of the war on terrorism. In the United States, for instance, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 and the images and expressions that followed, influenced some Americans to become intolerant and aggressive toward Muslim Americans, Arab Americans, Sikh Americans, and South Asian Americans [U.S. Department of Justice 2002]. These minority groups experienced some violent assaults, physical attacks, death threats, and vandalism [HRW 2002]. With regard to immigrants, according to Chang (2001), the PATRIOT Act tends to deprive some of due process and First Amendment Rights by expanding categories of immigrants that are subject to removal on terrorism grounds and by increasing the attorney general’s authority to detain immigrants suspected of terrorist activities. In Russia, although the government’s human rights abuses in Chechnya were condemned by most Western countries before September 11, after the event, these countries began to downplay them because of alleged Chechnyan links to terrorist networks [HRW 2002]. Similarly, in China, the government now tries to defend crackdown on the ethnic separatist movement of the Muslim population in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region by portraying them as terrorists [Amnesty International 2002, 5]. Similar tendencies to deny minority rights in the name of anti terrorism may be found in India under the newly introduced Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance. These are only a few of many critical observations of how current antiterrorism campaigns may be affecting minority rights |27 ConT`d from page 10 in various countries and how some governments may use them to deny such rights. Finally, with regard to people’s social rights, the war on terrorism may have certain indirect impacts on people’s entitlement to basic services as a result of the restructuring of budgets in favor of defense and law enforcement at the expense of social programs. Global War on Terrorism: US Objectives vs. Achievements When the USA declared a global war on terrorism in 2001, it had five main objectives, among others, to (1) defeat terrorists such as Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and destroy their organizations; (2) identify, locate and destroy terrorists along with their organizations; (3) deny sponsorship, support and sanctuary to terrorists; (4) diminish the underlying conditions that terrorists seek to exploit; and, (5) defend U.S. citizens and interests at home and abroad [WIKIPEDIA, The Free Encyclopaedia]. In the wake of 9/11, the US Administration has pointed to the killing or capture of more than 2/3 of all al-Qaeda’s top leadership and seizure of over $200 million in terrorist financing as examples of progress against terrorism. More recently, progress milestones cited by President Bush Jr. in his September 28, 2005 statement included (1) removal of brutal regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq that harboured terrorists; (2) moving forward in the “march” of democracy worldwide, noting Lebanon; (3) shutting down a major weapons of mass destruction (WMD) black market network originating in Pakistan, and Libya’s rejoining a community of nations; and (4) capturing a number of key terrorists in Pakistan and Iraq, as well as capturing and killing hundreds of insurgents in Iraq [ibid]. In view of the massive terrorist attacks in India, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Uganda, Russia and the former USSR member republics and elsewhere that the world has witnessed since the declaration of global war on terrorism in 2001, it is easy to assert that the battle is yet to be won by world nations. Wiping out terrorists and terrorism in general from the face of the earth is easier said than done; it is absolutely impossible to destroy terrorism as such. As terrorism creates numerous victims, counter-terrorism is creating more and more new victims. Above all, the human and financial costs are staggering, to say the least. The opportunity costs of diverting away funds from social programs and projects to the war on terrorism are incalculable. The challenge for all humanity remains to critically examine and find out the root causes of terrorism and expend all resources possible to solve these man-made problems; war alone cannot resolve the global menace of terrorism. Concluding Remarks As reiterated earlier, the global war against terrorism is legitimate and necessary. However, combating terror must not be at the expense of the enjoyment of civil and political liberties of citizens, groups and nations. Anti-terrorism measures need to be implemented within a human rights framework in order for them to achieve their legitimate objective of preventing terrorism. It cannot be denied or doubted that, the anti-terrorism legislations are retrogressive as they take away even the minimum gains of democratisation that have been made by the newly emerging democratic countries. Therefore, all countries, while complying with their international duties and obligations of combating terrorism, should also listen to the concerns of those at home. Surely, the fundamental freedoms of citizens should remain intact as all nations seek to end the devastating and deadly consequences of terrorist violence. Due note should be taken of the need for balancing civil liberties, national security and international responsibilities. There should not also be preference of national security at the expense of the protection of human rights of those suspected of or accused of terrorist activities. Rule of law and due process should guide all our actions in combating terrorism. Therefore, there arises a need to re-examine the anti-terrorist laws and initiatives already in place or those being worked out and confirm whether or not these are reconcilable with the freedoms and liberties of all citizens and groups in their own countries. Above all however, all nations should exert their maximum efforts at attacking the root causes of terrorism, instead of being bogged down in the fight against the apparent symptoms. That is the only way forward toward rooting out terror. Ed’s Note: Tesfaye Habisso was former ambassador of Ethiopia to Uganda and South Africa. He was also member and secretary of the Council of Representatives in the Transitional Government of Ethiopia (1991-1994), and a veteran of the Ethiopian Student Movement. He can be reached at habisso@yahoo.co.uk.
Page 1 and 2: The Reporter | Saturday |April 30,
Page 25: The Reporter | Saturday |April 30,

Ethiopian Reporter - Amharic Version

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?