2 maj 2007
Den tysta diplomatin som den svenska regeringen använt sig av för att få Dawit Isaak frigiven måste överges. Om det tycktes alla deltagare vara överens på det seminarium om yttrandefrihet som Amnesty arrangerade i Göteborg den 2 maj.
- Nu har det gått över två tusen dagar utan att Dawit släppts fri. Regeringens taktik fungerar uppenbarligen inte, sa Dawits bror Esayas Isaak.
Temat på seminariet på Världskulturmuseet i Göteborg var yttrandefrihet. En person fick under hela seminariet agera symbol för kampen för det fria ordet. Ett stort porträtt på Dawit Isaak hängde på väggen bakom seminariedeltagarna, och alla uppmanade till engagemang för journalisten Dawit Isaak som suttit fängslad i Eritrea sedan september 2001.
Representanter från utrikesdepartementet hade blivit inbjudna att tala om sin strategi för att få Dawit Isaak fri, men avböjt.
– De kör tydligen med tyst diplomati hela vägen. Det är ungefär som Eritreas regering brukar göra, sa Johan Karlsson, författare till boken ”Dawit och rättvisan” och en av dagens moderatorer.
Först ut att tala var representanter från Amnesty, Björn Tunbäck, journalist och styrelsemedlem i Reportrar utan gränser, Björn Linell från Svenska PEN-klubben och Göteborgs-Postens kulturchef Gabriel Byström. Gabriel Byström sa att den svenska diplomatin har misslyckats.
– Carl Bildt verkar tycka om att flyga. Han borde ta ett plan ned till Eritrea istället för att bara jobba med denna fråga hemifrån.
Björn Tunbäck sa att alla inblandade organisationer måste fortsätta kämpa så länge Dawit sitter fängslad och alla fyra uppmanade åhörarna att skapa opinion.
- Det låter gammeldags och romantiserat att den mest effektiva metoden är att väcka opinion, men så är det, sa Björn Linell.
Även då frågan om varför det tog så lång tid för svenska medier att uppmärksamma Dawits fall diskuterades var tonläget kritiskt. Björn Tunbäck menade att Dawit sannolikt inte anses vara svensk i allas ögon och Björn Linell sa kort att det beror på ”rasism och okunnighet”.
Allra mest negativa till UD:s arbete var ändå Dawits bror Esayas Isaak och de två eritreanska exiljournalisterna Khaled Abdu och Semret Seyoum.
– Vi i stödföreningen för Dawit har rätt god kontakt med UD. Men så länge han inte friges måste vi fortsätta att kritisera deras arbete, sa Esayas Isaak.
På frågan vad de önskar att UD ska göra istället för att förhandla i det tysta svarade även Esayas Isaak att Carl Bildt borde arbeta för Dawit på plats i Eritrea. Han sa också att regeringen inte kan vänta alltför länge med detta eftersom Dawit nu är sjuk och inte får den vård han behöver i fängelset. Khaled Abdu sa att man bör använda sig av alla tänkbara kanaler för att få till en frigivning. Han nämnde EU och FN och sa att det överhuvudtaget borde arbetas mycket mer aggressivt.
Esayas Isaak berättade att många regeringsvänliga eritreaner både i Sverige och i Eritrea anklagar Dawit-kampanjens deltagare för att sprida falska rykten.
– Den onda armen räcker ända hit till Göteborg, sa han.
Semret Seyoum sammanfattade seminariedeltagarnas budskap då frågan kring vad gemene man kan göra väcktes.
– Vi ska inte vara tysta. Vi ska höras så mycket det bara går, sa han.
Maria Sonnerby /RUG
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Monday, May 14, 2007
Germany's funding of journalism training for Eritrea's state-controlled media
Committee to Protect Journalists
330 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001 USA Phone: (212) 4651004 Fax: (212) 4659568 Web: www.cpj.org E-Mail: mkeita@cpj.org
New York, May 14, 2007—In a letter to the German government, the Committee to Protect Journalists today noted with concern Germany's funding of journalism training for Eritrea's state-controlled media while the country's independent press is shut down and more than a dozen publishers and editors are imprisoned. CPJ called on Germany to use its diplomatic influence to ensure that Eritrean journalists are allowed to practice their profession freely within international standards, and to insist that Eritrean authorities account for imprisoned journalists now jailed incommunicado.
May 14, 2007
The Honorable Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul
Federal Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development
C/o German Embassy to the United States
4645 Reservoir Road, NW, Washington DC 20007-1998
Via facsimile: (202) 298-4249
Dear Minister Wieczorek-Zeul:
The Committee to Protect Journalists notes that the German government has decided to fund the training of journalists working for Eritrea’s state-controlled media while the nation’s independent press remains shut down and more than a dozen publishers and editors continue to be held incommunicado, many since September 2001.
We welcome Germany’s interest in media development in Eritrea. However, we are deeply troubled by the Eritrean government’s ongoing repression of independent media. We hope that Germany will use its diplomatic influence to ensure that the Eritrean authorities account for the jailed journalists, including Swedish citizen and Eritrean national Dawit Isaac, co-owner of the defunct private weekly Setit. We are especially concerned because reliable reports indicate that some of these journalists, including Setit’s award-winning editor Fesshaye Yohannes, may have died in prison.
On April 16, the Deutsche-Welle Akademie (DW-Akademie), an agency whose international journalism training program is funded by your ministry, launched a journalism course to train staff of the Eritrean Information Ministry, according to the state Tigrina-language daily Haddas Eritrea. The training is part of a three-year cooperation agreement signed in December 2006 between DW-Akademie and the Eritrean Information Ministry, according to Haddas Eritrea.
While we are convinced that the DW-Akademie trainees are receiving world-class journalism training, we fear that they will not be able to faithfully exercise their profession since the Eritrean government effectively banned independent journalism in September 2001, and continues to subject the remaining state-controlled journalists to arbitrary imprisonment and threats of reprisals against their families.
Eritrea remains the only nation in sub-Saharan Africa without any independent media outlet. One week after September 11, 2001, the government of President Isaias Afewerki closed all privately owned media and arrested 10 independent journalists, according to CPJ research. Authorities accused the journalists of various alleged national security violations, but they have failed to bring identifiable charges in any known court.
The crackdown came shortly after the private press had covered a split in the ruling party and provided a forum for debate on Afewerki’s autocratic rule. Setit published on September 9, 2001, a letter addressed to the government stating that “people can tolerate hunger and other problems for a long time, but they can’t tolerate the absence of good administration and justice.” The crackdown was part of a government drive to eliminate political dissent ahead of elections, scheduled for December 2001 but canceled without explanation by the government.
The jailed journalists initially had limited access to the outside world as they were first held at a police station in the capital, Asmara, where they began a hunger strike on March 31, 2002. In a message smuggled from their jail, the journalists said they would refuse food until they were released or charged and given due process of law. But the government quickly transferred the journalists to secret locations.
Holding the journalists incommunicado, the government—with one exception explained below—has refused to divulge their whereabouts, their health, or even whether they are still alive. Officials at the Eritrean embassy in Washington and at the Information Ministry in Asmara have consistently failed to respond to CPJ’s inquiries seeking information. During a press conference in Brussels on May 4, the day after World Press Freedom Day, in response to a question about freedom of the press in Eritrea, Afewerki asked “what freedoms those living in South African shantytowns enjoyed?” according to Agence France-Presse. In response to another question about the fate of Isaac, Afewerki asked “why Sweden was so interested in handing out passports to Eritreans,” according to AFP. Isaac was released for a medical checkup on November 19, 2005, and allowed to phone his family and a friend in Sweden. Despite hopes that he would be freed, Isaac was returned to jail two days later with no explanation, according to CPJ sources.
In February 2007, in response to news reports that Yohannes had died in prison, presidential spokesman Yemane Gebremeskel was quoted by Voice of America as saying: “In the first place, I don’t know the person you’re talking about.” Yohannes is said to have died in detention, and his death was first reported in January 2006, according to CPJ sources. His family was not formally notified, and they were not able to recover his body for a proper burial.
Other journalists who have been held either without charge or trial or who remain in indefinite state custody as of today are editor Said Abdelkader of Admas, assistant editor Fitzum Wedi Ade, and editor-in-chief Amanuel Asrat of Zemen; journalist Saleh Aljezeeri of Eritrean State Radio, editor-in-chief Yusuf Mohamed Ali of Tsigenay; reporter Selamyinghes Beyene of Meqaleh; columnist Temesken Ghebreyesus of Keste Debena; editor-in-chief Mattewos Habteab and assistant editor Dawit Habtemichael of Meqaleh; assistant editor Medhanie Haile of Keste Debena; founder and manager Zemenfes Haile and reporter Ghebrehiwet Keleta of Tsigenay; Hamid Mohammed Said of the Eritrean State Television; and freelance photographer and former director of the Eritrean State Television Seyoum Tsehaye, according to CPJ research. Credible but unconfirmed reports in September 2006 said that Abdelkader, Ali and Haile had died in prison.
CPJ research shows that Eritrea was the world’s third leading jailer of journalists in 2006; those in custody included at least eight state media journalists who were detained for several weeks in late 2006. The government did not explain the 2006 crackdown, but sources said it was designed to intimidate state media workers after several colleagues had fled the country.
The government’s monopoly on domestic media, the fear of reprisal among prisoners’ families, and tight restrictions on the movement of all foreigners led CPJ in 2006 to name Eritrea as one of the 10 most censored countries in the world.
With freedom of thought and expression brutally suppressed in Eritrea, we are deeply concerned that the local journalists the German government is funding to train will not be able to exercise their profession within international ethical standards. We therefore call on you to use all your diplomatic influence to obtain guarantees from the Eritrean authorities that the journalists will be able to work freely and without fear of reprisal. We also call on you to insist that the Eritrean government lift its ban on the private press, that it fully account for those journalists who have died in prison, and that it to immediately release all journalists who have been jailed without charge or trial simply for exercising their right to free expression.
We thank you for your attention, and we look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Joel Simon
Executive Director
CC:
H.E. Thomas Matussek, German Ambassador to the United States
H.E. Klaus Scharioth, German Ambassador to the United States
H.E. Gunnar Lund, Ambassador of Sweden to the United States
The Honorable Karin Kortmann, Parliamentary State Secretary
Günter Nooke, Federal Government Commissioner for Human Rights Policy and Humanitarian Aid
The Honorable Dr. Herta Däubler-Gmelin, Chair of the Committee on Human Rights and Humanitarian Assistance of the German Bundestag
The Honorable Thilo Hoppe, Chair of the Committee on Economic Cooperation and Development (AwZ) of the German Bundestag
The Honorable Cecilia Magnusson, Chair of the Committee of Foreign Affairs of the Swedish Parliament
H.E. Alexander Beckman, Ambassador of Germany to Eritrea
Gerda Meuer, Director of the Deutsche-Welle Akademie
Benita Ferrero-Waldner, European Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighborhood Policy
Louis Michel, European Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid
The Honorable Hélène Flautre, Chair of the Subcommittee on Human Rights of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament
European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights
Faith Pansy Tlakula, African Commission Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression in Africa
Reine Alapini-Gansou, African Commission on Human Rights Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders
Mogens Schmidt, Deputy Assistant Director-General, Freedom of Expression and Democracy Unit, UNESCO
American Society of Newspaper Editors
Amnesty International
Article 19 (United Kingdom)
Artikel 19 (The Netherlands)
Canadian Journalists for Free Expression
Freedom Forum
Freedom House
Human Rights Watch
Index on Censorship
International Center for Journalists
International Federation of Journalists
International PEN
International Press Institute
Michael G. Kozak, United States Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
The Newspaper Guild
The North American Broadcasters Association
Overseas Press Club
Reporters Sans Frontières
The Society of Professional Journalists
World Association of Newspapers
World Press Freedom Committee
330 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001 USA Phone: (212) 4651004 Fax: (212) 4659568 Web: www.cpj.org E-Mail: mkeita@cpj.org
New York, May 14, 2007—In a letter to the German government, the Committee to Protect Journalists today noted with concern Germany's funding of journalism training for Eritrea's state-controlled media while the country's independent press is shut down and more than a dozen publishers and editors are imprisoned. CPJ called on Germany to use its diplomatic influence to ensure that Eritrean journalists are allowed to practice their profession freely within international standards, and to insist that Eritrean authorities account for imprisoned journalists now jailed incommunicado.
May 14, 2007
The Honorable Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul
Federal Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development
C/o German Embassy to the United States
4645 Reservoir Road, NW, Washington DC 20007-1998
Via facsimile: (202) 298-4249
Dear Minister Wieczorek-Zeul:
The Committee to Protect Journalists notes that the German government has decided to fund the training of journalists working for Eritrea’s state-controlled media while the nation’s independent press remains shut down and more than a dozen publishers and editors continue to be held incommunicado, many since September 2001.
We welcome Germany’s interest in media development in Eritrea. However, we are deeply troubled by the Eritrean government’s ongoing repression of independent media. We hope that Germany will use its diplomatic influence to ensure that the Eritrean authorities account for the jailed journalists, including Swedish citizen and Eritrean national Dawit Isaac, co-owner of the defunct private weekly Setit. We are especially concerned because reliable reports indicate that some of these journalists, including Setit’s award-winning editor Fesshaye Yohannes, may have died in prison.
On April 16, the Deutsche-Welle Akademie (DW-Akademie), an agency whose international journalism training program is funded by your ministry, launched a journalism course to train staff of the Eritrean Information Ministry, according to the state Tigrina-language daily Haddas Eritrea. The training is part of a three-year cooperation agreement signed in December 2006 between DW-Akademie and the Eritrean Information Ministry, according to Haddas Eritrea.
While we are convinced that the DW-Akademie trainees are receiving world-class journalism training, we fear that they will not be able to faithfully exercise their profession since the Eritrean government effectively banned independent journalism in September 2001, and continues to subject the remaining state-controlled journalists to arbitrary imprisonment and threats of reprisals against their families.
Eritrea remains the only nation in sub-Saharan Africa without any independent media outlet. One week after September 11, 2001, the government of President Isaias Afewerki closed all privately owned media and arrested 10 independent journalists, according to CPJ research. Authorities accused the journalists of various alleged national security violations, but they have failed to bring identifiable charges in any known court.
The crackdown came shortly after the private press had covered a split in the ruling party and provided a forum for debate on Afewerki’s autocratic rule. Setit published on September 9, 2001, a letter addressed to the government stating that “people can tolerate hunger and other problems for a long time, but they can’t tolerate the absence of good administration and justice.” The crackdown was part of a government drive to eliminate political dissent ahead of elections, scheduled for December 2001 but canceled without explanation by the government.
The jailed journalists initially had limited access to the outside world as they were first held at a police station in the capital, Asmara, where they began a hunger strike on March 31, 2002. In a message smuggled from their jail, the journalists said they would refuse food until they were released or charged and given due process of law. But the government quickly transferred the journalists to secret locations.
Holding the journalists incommunicado, the government—with one exception explained below—has refused to divulge their whereabouts, their health, or even whether they are still alive. Officials at the Eritrean embassy in Washington and at the Information Ministry in Asmara have consistently failed to respond to CPJ’s inquiries seeking information. During a press conference in Brussels on May 4, the day after World Press Freedom Day, in response to a question about freedom of the press in Eritrea, Afewerki asked “what freedoms those living in South African shantytowns enjoyed?” according to Agence France-Presse. In response to another question about the fate of Isaac, Afewerki asked “why Sweden was so interested in handing out passports to Eritreans,” according to AFP. Isaac was released for a medical checkup on November 19, 2005, and allowed to phone his family and a friend in Sweden. Despite hopes that he would be freed, Isaac was returned to jail two days later with no explanation, according to CPJ sources.
In February 2007, in response to news reports that Yohannes had died in prison, presidential spokesman Yemane Gebremeskel was quoted by Voice of America as saying: “In the first place, I don’t know the person you’re talking about.” Yohannes is said to have died in detention, and his death was first reported in January 2006, according to CPJ sources. His family was not formally notified, and they were not able to recover his body for a proper burial.
Other journalists who have been held either without charge or trial or who remain in indefinite state custody as of today are editor Said Abdelkader of Admas, assistant editor Fitzum Wedi Ade, and editor-in-chief Amanuel Asrat of Zemen; journalist Saleh Aljezeeri of Eritrean State Radio, editor-in-chief Yusuf Mohamed Ali of Tsigenay; reporter Selamyinghes Beyene of Meqaleh; columnist Temesken Ghebreyesus of Keste Debena; editor-in-chief Mattewos Habteab and assistant editor Dawit Habtemichael of Meqaleh; assistant editor Medhanie Haile of Keste Debena; founder and manager Zemenfes Haile and reporter Ghebrehiwet Keleta of Tsigenay; Hamid Mohammed Said of the Eritrean State Television; and freelance photographer and former director of the Eritrean State Television Seyoum Tsehaye, according to CPJ research. Credible but unconfirmed reports in September 2006 said that Abdelkader, Ali and Haile had died in prison.
CPJ research shows that Eritrea was the world’s third leading jailer of journalists in 2006; those in custody included at least eight state media journalists who were detained for several weeks in late 2006. The government did not explain the 2006 crackdown, but sources said it was designed to intimidate state media workers after several colleagues had fled the country.
The government’s monopoly on domestic media, the fear of reprisal among prisoners’ families, and tight restrictions on the movement of all foreigners led CPJ in 2006 to name Eritrea as one of the 10 most censored countries in the world.
With freedom of thought and expression brutally suppressed in Eritrea, we are deeply concerned that the local journalists the German government is funding to train will not be able to exercise their profession within international ethical standards. We therefore call on you to use all your diplomatic influence to obtain guarantees from the Eritrean authorities that the journalists will be able to work freely and without fear of reprisal. We also call on you to insist that the Eritrean government lift its ban on the private press, that it fully account for those journalists who have died in prison, and that it to immediately release all journalists who have been jailed without charge or trial simply for exercising their right to free expression.
We thank you for your attention, and we look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Joel Simon
Executive Director
CC:
H.E. Thomas Matussek, German Ambassador to the United States
H.E. Klaus Scharioth, German Ambassador to the United States
H.E. Gunnar Lund, Ambassador of Sweden to the United States
The Honorable Karin Kortmann, Parliamentary State Secretary
Günter Nooke, Federal Government Commissioner for Human Rights Policy and Humanitarian Aid
The Honorable Dr. Herta Däubler-Gmelin, Chair of the Committee on Human Rights and Humanitarian Assistance of the German Bundestag
The Honorable Thilo Hoppe, Chair of the Committee on Economic Cooperation and Development (AwZ) of the German Bundestag
The Honorable Cecilia Magnusson, Chair of the Committee of Foreign Affairs of the Swedish Parliament
H.E. Alexander Beckman, Ambassador of Germany to Eritrea
Gerda Meuer, Director of the Deutsche-Welle Akademie
Benita Ferrero-Waldner, European Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighborhood Policy
Louis Michel, European Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid
The Honorable Hélène Flautre, Chair of the Subcommittee on Human Rights of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament
European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights
Faith Pansy Tlakula, African Commission Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression in Africa
Reine Alapini-Gansou, African Commission on Human Rights Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders
Mogens Schmidt, Deputy Assistant Director-General, Freedom of Expression and Democracy Unit, UNESCO
American Society of Newspaper Editors
Amnesty International
Article 19 (United Kingdom)
Artikel 19 (The Netherlands)
Canadian Journalists for Free Expression
Freedom Forum
Freedom House
Human Rights Watch
Index on Censorship
International Center for Journalists
International Federation of Journalists
International PEN
International Press Institute
Michael G. Kozak, United States Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
The Newspaper Guild
The North American Broadcasters Association
Overseas Press Club
Reporters Sans Frontières
The Society of Professional Journalists
World Association of Newspapers
World Press Freedom Committee
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
European Union’s Double Standard
PIA’s recent visit to Brussels for talks with EU’s development commissioner Louis Michel raises a number of moral and legal responsibilities EU must bear in mind in its pursuit of undefined relations with a repressive regime.
It should be clear from the outset that whatever EU may do to entertain PIA won’t change the fundamental questions occupying Eritrea and the horn in general. Complicated issues can’t be addressed through wishy-washy policies. It can’t be lost with EU and its development commissioner that the Somali issue is being complicated due to the stalemate over Eritrean-Ethiopian border demarcation process. Without EU’s firm position over the border demarcation process, which may bring it into conflict with the US policy in the region, EU’s wishy-washy position over secondary issues won’t yield any results. If EU’s commissioner wants to be seen as ‘doing something’ in the region to justify his job, he must equally examine his and his organization’s legal and moral obligations to take account of the deteriorating human rights and social conditions brought about through unrestrained dictatorship in Eritrea.
We should reject EU’s ‘flavor of the month’ politics. EU can’t say, ‘Oh, it is September so let EU parliamentarians write a letter to the Eritrean leader asking for their release. Oh, it is May so let us invite PIA and pat him on the back. Oh, it is …’ Instead, the issues and questions that should be posed to EU are the followings,
EU parliamentarians are fully aware of the plights of Eritrean parliamentarians and yet have done nothing to secure their release. In fact, by writing their annual ritual one-page protest letter to PIA, inadvertently, EU parliamentarians are exposing their moral and legal obligations over their failures to address the gross human rights violations in Eritrea. By writing these protest letters, EU parliamentarians can no longer claim ignorance over the plight of the Eritrean parliamentarians and the overall human rights situation in Eritrea.
Amnesty International, CPJ, Religious organizations and many other human rights organizations have well documented the systematic and gross human rights violations in Eritrea. The EU commissioner and his colleagues can not possibly claim ignorance over the human rights conditions in Eritrea.
From Mr. Bandini to EU’s current Ambassador to Eritrea, Mr. Geert Heikens, have expressed their unequivocal understanding of the PIA regime as unabashed dictatorship, not only flaunting its disrespect for the rule-of-law in Eritrea but even breaching legal agreements with its donors. At a time when Mr. Geert Heikens and other analysts were expecting EU to ask for redress over this breach, instead EU is proceeding by promising to provide additional humanitarian assistance.
Barely few months ago, Eritrean Anti-tyranny Global Solidarity delivered a petition signed by 5,000 Eritreans asking for help in addressing the gross violations of human rights in Eritrea. Among a number of requests, one request was for banning High Eritrean government officials from traveling to the West. EU and its development commissioner seem oblivious to the requests of Eritrean people.
In reality, EU is playing double standards. The Council of European Union Decision 2002/148/EC imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe because “European Union considers that democratic principles are still not upheld in Zimbabwe and that no significant progress has been achieved by your country’s government in the five fields …” What are the five fields?
End of politically motivated violence,
Free and fair elections,
Freedom of the media
Independence of the judiciary
End of illegal occupations of farms.
The sanctions include “the Council also issued travel bans and a freezing of funds and other financial assets for Mugabe and 19 of his colleagues, who were deemed guilty of serious violations of human rights, freedom of opinion, and freedom of association and peaceful assembly in Zimbabwe. The EU was keen to emphasize that the sanctions imposed are designed to affect only those against whom they are imposed, and should not penalize the “ordinary citizens” of Zimbabwe.”
The question that should be posed to EU is whether their diplomatic acts are simply wishy-washy politics or acts based on certain principles. If EU’s acts are guided by certain principles, ‘what is good for the goose is good for the gander’, thus what is good for President Mugabe is good for PIA. In fact, most Eritreans and various international human rights organizations would say that President Mugabe’s treatment of its political opposition is infinitely more humane that PIA’s treatment of its political opposition. Recently, President Mugabe beat up two opposition leaders and yet the opposition leaders were free afterwards to speak to the world media and to seek medical treatment in South Africa and return to Zimbabwe. It can’t be lost with the development commissioner the most inhumane treatment our opposition and prisoners-of-conscious are receiving.
The purpose of this article or any of my other articles isn’t to engage in political debate with those we disagree. If we reduce our discussions to simply political debates, the ones with sticks and money would probably win every time. Political debates are grey areas. As activists, our role is to convert those political debates into moral and legal questions. By doing so, we force the wishy-washy domestic and foreign political players to take unequivocal position on certain fundamental principles.
Thus, our question to the EU development commissioner and EU in general should be,
1. What are the principles applied to deal with different dictators? If EU is leaning hard on those dictators that affect its organizational interests directly and softly on those dictators that don’t affect its organizational interests directly, then EU doesn’t have principles but is playing politics to pursue its own socio-economic and political interests at the expense of certain fundamental principles. The answer to this question has wider ramifications. For instance, the International Criminal Court (ICC) which is the brainchild of the European governments, would lose its credibility if EU is perceived as playing politics to advance its own interests. ICC’s credibility doesn’t emanate from the court itself but the world’s general perceptions towards European governments and EU themselves.
2. According to Mr. Heikens, Eritrea is responsible for restitutions on donated food ‘deemed’ sold to Eritreans. Instead of rectifying this issue, if EU donates more food and PIA continues with his unpunished behavior, who will be ultimately responsible for breach of contract? My fellow readers, you know what wishy-washy donors do, they will continue donating food to the regime although fully aware that the regime is breaching food donation contracts, and then when a democratic government is elected, wishy-washy donors begin flexing their muscles on the democratic government threatening to withhold funding unless the democratic government compensates the donors for breach of contracts under the ousted dictators. This has been donor’s curse for Africa. Instead, EU should withhold any humanitarian assistance until PIA has made restitutions, and then proceed with providing additional humanitarian assistance. If EU fails to enforce its contracts immediately, future Eritrean governments have no moral or legal obligations to compensate for contract breaches committed under previous regimes.
3. If EU decides to resume providing development assistance, the EU development commissioner should be made fully aware that he and his organization are stepping into legal liability. Donors have legal responsibilities to ensure that their project assistances are implemented according to certain human rights codes and worker safety standards. EU can’t extend financial assistance for development projects and pretend or assume that its assistance is being implemented in accordance with EU’s own, and not PFDJ’s, labor and work standards. For instance, if EU provides financial, material or expertise assistance for drinking water project somewhere in Eritrea and if PIA uses slave labor to undertake that project, does EU bear responsibility for the use or condoning the use of slave labor? Absolutely! EU can’t claim ignorance over this issue because the use of slave labor is well documented by international human rights organizations. EU can’t use PIA’s definitions to determine if slave labor is being used in Eritrea. EU has legal obligations to define slave labor according to its own social, legal and political standards. If EU provides as much as one cent for development assistance, EU becomes legally liable for the use of slave labor. We have to make sure that the development commissioner is fully aware of the implications, and more importantly, that we will pursue this issue.
It is not lost with anyone that EU imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe because white farmers are involved. The British government leaned on the EU, and voila EU imposed a sanction. EU’s indirect statement is that black parliamentarians and tens of thousands of innocent Eritreans in PFDJ Dungeons are expendable. This is condescending attitude. But as black Africans, and especially as Eritreans, we should always remember that our traditional African societies have lived under advanced social standards and harmony, and rule of law for centuries while Gauls, Vikings were jumping around from one tree-to-another, and their Roman kin were slaughtering and enslaving their own and the rest of the world. The various dynasties from China to Russia to Europe created the most miserable conditions for their own people and their subjects for centuries, while we Africans lived in relative peace for centuries. We don’t need any condescending attitude from anyone. EU must address issues based on principles, as it claims, and not simply on politics.
Opposition’s Reply?
What happened to opposition’s non-existent foreign relations? PFDJ’s diplomatic skills is somewhere between weak and belligerent. The opposition camp’s diplomatic skill is non-existent. I don’t know which one is worse. If the development commissioner had an ounce of respect for Eritrean opposition and the Eritrean public, he would have put out a statement saying that he discussed regional issues with PIA and that he raised the issue of gross human rights violations in Eritrea with PIA. This would have been an indirect acknowledgment to the Eritrean people in general and the opposition camp specifically that EU considers human rights violations as a serious issue. The fact that Mr. Louise Michel didn’t bother to raise this issue demonstrates that the organization he leads has no respect for Eritreans. The opposition camp should have quickly replied to such condescending attitude.
EDA should understand that nobody cares whether they amend their article 1 or 10 or 50. These are issues that will be addressed by the vast stakeholders in post-PFDJ Eritrea. Over two years to address a couple of articles, while in the end parting their ways, indicates that we remain severely challenged in tackling today’s issues. If EDA was addressing article 4 or 5 while actively engaged in other opposition campaigns, we would have respected their overall efforts. Whether they agree on a couple of articles on issues that can only be addressed in the future doesn’t excuse their lackluster performance today.
If we evaluate the opposition camp, the overwhelming productive opposition efforts are being exerted by non-political organizations. If we examine opposition news organizations, human rights organizations, rallies, petitions, writing campaigns and every other effort has been organized and delivered by these non-political groups, not the political organizations. It escapes me what the function of the political groups is – to amend article 4 and 5 over 10 years?
EDA’s [former] leader popping up on Al-jazeera when the news network probably had no news to broadcast a couple of years was announced to us as a major achievement. Eritrean opposition shouldn’t become news fillers for news broadcasters. Instead, Eritrean opposition must be able to persuade, and if necessary coerce, news networks to give air time to the opposition. When PIA is on Al-Jazeera one day, opposition must strive to be on Al-Jazeera the following day.
Some will say, ‘easier said than done’. Whether Al-Jazeera agrees to opposition’s request to appear on their news program is secondary. The important thing is for the opposition to do things for the sake of doing by proceeding in the following steps,
1. Soon after PIA’s appearance on Al-jazeera, the opposition should make written request to appear on Al-jazeera.
2. If Al-Jazeera doesn’t reply or give a negative reply, the opposition camp would publicize its efforts to the Eritrean public.
3. Never acquiescing to rejections, from time-to-time, the opposition camp would make persistent request to appear on their program and failing to receive a positive reply then to write articles criticizing Al-Jazeera and making sure that a copy of our request and Al-Jazeera’s replies are posted on Eritrean opposition websites. At the very least we could be nuisance and they should believe that when things change around in Eritrea, that they could be left out. No one should ever think that we are too polite because otherwise everyone will shoo us away. They will only call us when they want us, never the other way around.
The approach with EU or others would follow the same steps. Write letters requesting why Mr. Michele didn’t address the oppositions’ concerns. If the development commissioner fails to reply or gives negative reply, immediately send the same information to Eritrean opposition websites. Don’t tell the development commissioner how bad PFDJ is because he knows that already. Tell him what his moral and legal obligations are in a stern but diplomatic language. Use international rights organizations and possibly diplomats such as Mr. Bandini to personally deliver those letters to the development commissioner. When we make a lot of noise, we give more clouts to people like Mr. Bandini. The critical factor is to continually publicize our efforts.
We shouldn’t judge our efforts by end results only. Instead, our efforts are judged by simply doing something and by remaining active. Never discount the power of being just nuisance. We should learn to do something for the sake of doing something. I assure my readers that results will surely follow. If we simply convince ourselves that EU, Al-Jazeera, etc…won’t respond to us because we are insignificant, then we have failed as opposition and as aspiring leaders without even trying.
Failure is part of life. Failure isn’t about falling down, but about not getting up after falling down. Failure is about not learning from one’s mistakes. Failure is about being afraid to try new ways. The opposition camp is replete with individuals who are so sure about their views and “their truth”, yet they have served us failure after failure because they believe that political leadership is about heaping dirt on the other guy, and yet have not provided one iota of positive activism.
At the risk of deviating from my topic, let me interject one thought about shameful politics on the part of Deqebat.com. This response is partially sparked by part 13 of an interview with an elderly Eritrean politician. But in my last article (‘Back to Tribouli’), i.e. even before part 13 of the interview, I alluded to this series of interviews by complaining that these ‘politicians’ begin by stating their principles and then proceed by engaging in the worst form of rumor-mongering thus negating their principles. I included that portion because deqebat.com’s interviewee was engaged in salacious rumors about PIA’s background although claiming at the beginning of his statement that he isn’t comfortable discussing these type of issues. I find such duplicity as the most dangerous type of politics that weakens democracy. We campaign on principles and values – never on rumor mongering or irrelevant issues. The King’s Court intrigues in an age of internet must be refuted with our every ounce of our energy. It is destructive! PIA is hundred times the man deqebat is. Gen. Mesfin is one thousand times the man deqebat is. PIA is a dictator but we know from which angle he is coming. Even more dangerous are those who strive to scratch more wounds while pretending to possess wisdom and pretending to stand by certain principles. Every Eritrean with one iota of blood is Eritrean. Eritrea belongs to anyone that loves it and wants to nurture it. Eritrea doesn’t need those, even those claiming to be deqebat, who try to sow weeds and the seeds of discord. ‘Deqebat’ itself is a medieval concept. In today’s world, migration has changed the face of the world. The victor of the presidential election in France, possibly the second or third most powerful nation in the world, a couple of days ago is born from a Hungarian father who immigrated to France. Deqebat lives in Europe owning or asking to own European citizenship and yet campaigning to dispossess others of their Eritrean identity. My response to deqebat’s continuous destructive politics – at one time on religious issues, and now back to individual politics – would have been muted if deqebat wasn’t the official website of the League of Eritrean Democratic Forces (LEDF) which includes Tesfa Network and Eritrean Congress Party. If this is what LEDF considers as positive politics, then there is something major amiss in their politics. If deqebat and LEDF believe that they are engaging in ‘smart’ politics, I can assure those who are pursuing this destructive political strategy that the rest of us can be equal to the task. We don’t need to engage in destructive politics to engage deqebat but to reveal to our common readers the dangerous path deqebat is pursuing.
Dissention within EDP
In the last two-and-half years, I have tried to address every issue as I understood them. I have criticized almost every political organization. I make no exception to EDP. In writing this portion of my article, my readers should understand that I am not an insider and do not possess any more information than most of my fellow readers. However, I can’t possibly pass up an opportunity to address organizational challenges.
We have heard and read the dissenters views on certain issues. It is difficult to address issues by listening to one side only and without possessing an organization’s bylaws and resolutions passed during its congresses.
The dissention can be examined at various levels, including the overall handling of the dissent and the question of organizational rule-of-law.
Ø Organizational rule-of-law
I will start with this topic because we need only examine technical issues. Unfortunately, the dissenters haven’t quoted any specific sections in EDP organizational laws in arguing their cases. I can’t neither support nor argue against the dissenters without specific information. But one may discuss from general observations.
Even if leadership violates any of the organizational laws or provisions, there is always a mechanism for calling organizational meetings (i.e. extraordinary meeting) at each level: executive, central committee and congress. Dissenters who make up less than the minimum required to call extraordinary meeting at any level can’t force a meeting without the minimum requirements regardless of how serious the violations are.
It is understandable the frustration in gathering membership petition in Diaspora politics. The only means available to the dissenters is to propagate their views through the public medium in order to reach out to other members and to the public beyond that. Based on the number of open supporters for the dissenting views, it appears that they may not have enough votes to call extraordinary meeting.
The dissenters themselves have responsibilities to abide by the organizational laws. If they can’t garner enough votes to call extraordinary meeting, they have two choices: resign or to wait until the next congress [which I hope there is a requirement to meet on periodic basis and is not left to CC’s discretion only]. The dissenters don’t have rights to declare organizational laws as void just because they felt leadership breached an important issue. The dissenters have equal if not more legal responsibilities to ensure that their accusations are backed by facts. In general, accusers have greater legal responsibility. Failing to state the facts and possibly making false accusations is tantamount to engaging in slanderous and libelous acts. One must differentiate between dissent and slanderous statements.
The other question I have is what are the organization rules for replacing central committee members?
Ø The Subjective Analysis
Again, it is difficult to analyze on the basis of publicly available information only. The dissenters accused the Chairman of ignoring them and even engaging in deriding them. Observing our overall Eritrean attitude and poor communications skills, I may be able to deconstruct what may have led to the foul moods on both sides. The dissenting side felt deliberately excluded from an important decision on travel to Ethiopia. The dissenters may have expressed their views in strong terms to the Chairman and they may have even questioned the integrity of the Chairman and the leadership in general. The Chairman, like every other human, felt offended by the remarks and accusations and refuses to meet with them. In addition, leadership takes one step further and flushes them out.
I fully understand the dissenters’ frustrations and possibly leadership’s harsh response. I can imagine the dynamics that leads to communication breakdowns leading to ill-will. Both sides have responsibilities to engage in positive communication, but failing so, in general, leadership has a higher moral responsibility to reason out with the dissenters regardless of the dissenters’ anger which may stifle communication.
In fact, there is a political culture we must change. There is a tendency in Eritrean communities and organizations’ leaderships to believe that the general public or general membership must be kept in the dark until the last minute and only told to accept a fait-accompli. I think this is taking advantage of the good-natured behavior of most people. In the short-run, leadership may avoid internal discord, but in the medium-to- long-run it creates mistrust. Every unpleasant act we attempt to avoid now will come back to hound us in vengeance.
While adherence to organizational rule-of-law remains unequivocal, policies can change with evolving realities. What glues together the rule-of-law on one end and polices at the other end is credibility and integrity. EDP’s leadership may have followed proper procedures to address the dissenters’ issue, but what binds an organization together is not only adherence to legalities but also that efforts be made to make every member feel that he/she is included in the decision making of critical issues. EDP’s credibility would be tarnished by ‘even appearing’ to antagonize any dissenters even if leadership followed proper legal procedures to address issues. The best approach would have been for EDP to allow the dissenters to post on its own website, say, one open letter expressing their dissent over leadership’s decision over the said issue and even allowing them to petition for extraordinary meeting in the same open letter. Even better would be to respond to their dissents both on legal issue and at public relations level. These members shouldn’t be made to feel that they are expendable or that they are troublemakers for dissenting or for trying to petition. They expressed their legitimate concerns. Any dissenter who has strong feelings towards certain issues has a duty to address them. They should not have been made to contact meskerem.net or deqebat.com, which must have been very emotionally difficult for them to do so, but felt they had no other choice. If the dissenters sent their protest letters to asmarino or awate or any other independent opposition news media but they decide to suppress them, then these news organizations have failed to do their jobs. EDP, RC, ENSF or any other political organizations are not immune from criticisms. However, the news websites have to ensure that their posting guidelines are followed and to ensure that the dissenters’ messages aren’t libelous. As for EDP, if it doesn’t want to publish their protests on its own website, EDP should have arranged for asmarino, awate, nharnet or other respectable websites to post their protests. Even if the dissenters have already decided to leave the organization, they should feel that their dissents received fair treatment. Even better would have been if EDP would throw a little reception for the departing members thanking them for their services, giving them certificates of appreciation and for them to keep struggling against the regime in their ways. Deep down, EDP’s leadership may feel angry of what the dissenters may have done to it, as the dissenters feel same towards leadership, but the day we are able to swallow our pride, ego and the need for vindication, if we can overcome that feeling, then we would have won the world. We have to force our mouths to smile even when our stomach is burning. This isn’t insincerity but opening up the way for the healing process. After all, Eritrea has a very small population and everyone counts. This is not necessarily about being nice, but about being fair. We will never agree on all issues, but as long as people feel that they are treated fairly, we can attain our democracy in record time. Human courtesy and respect is above all issues. During these difficult times it won’t be political intrigues that will save Eritrea, but our unequivocal beliefs towards human respect. We can return to political mud-slinging once we have reached political stability in Eritrea. In the meantime, let everyone know that we have unshakeable respect for everyone. If any one believes that our good natured behavior is a weakness, let them cross the line and test our wrath.
EDP carries greater organizational responsibility within the opposition camp than all other opposition parties because it may have the inside track if a sudden change takes place in Eritrea. Other political organizations and individuals may have greater apprehensions towards EDP – thus the continuous political and personal attacks against it. I have supported EDP for its positions on many issues. In the last couple of years, positive developments have allowed the political views of EDP, ENSF, RC and even Mr. Adhanom’s EPM to begin merging which is very encouraging by itself. As important policies are, it is even more important to cultivate trust and credibility. Let the other parties respect your organization even if they disagree with your policies. At the end of the day, on most issues and policies, we rely on trust and credibility we place on our leaders to address many of the issues and policies than each one of us trying to drive from the backseat. In return, leadership should strive to maintain that trust through ‘good-faith’ practices.
Dissent is at the core of our democratic values. The dissenting EDP members have exercised their God-given rights to dissent and have nothing to be concerned about. I respect them for their convictions. My only advice is to be careful in making their public statements and to ensure that they have their legal facts and organizational rules correct. Otherwise they will be committing the same mistakes that they are accusing others of doing. When we dissent, we have to hold ourselves and the people we accuse to higher standards.
Berhan Hagos
May 8, 2007
It should be clear from the outset that whatever EU may do to entertain PIA won’t change the fundamental questions occupying Eritrea and the horn in general. Complicated issues can’t be addressed through wishy-washy policies. It can’t be lost with EU and its development commissioner that the Somali issue is being complicated due to the stalemate over Eritrean-Ethiopian border demarcation process. Without EU’s firm position over the border demarcation process, which may bring it into conflict with the US policy in the region, EU’s wishy-washy position over secondary issues won’t yield any results. If EU’s commissioner wants to be seen as ‘doing something’ in the region to justify his job, he must equally examine his and his organization’s legal and moral obligations to take account of the deteriorating human rights and social conditions brought about through unrestrained dictatorship in Eritrea.
We should reject EU’s ‘flavor of the month’ politics. EU can’t say, ‘Oh, it is September so let EU parliamentarians write a letter to the Eritrean leader asking for their release. Oh, it is May so let us invite PIA and pat him on the back. Oh, it is …’ Instead, the issues and questions that should be posed to EU are the followings,
EU parliamentarians are fully aware of the plights of Eritrean parliamentarians and yet have done nothing to secure their release. In fact, by writing their annual ritual one-page protest letter to PIA, inadvertently, EU parliamentarians are exposing their moral and legal obligations over their failures to address the gross human rights violations in Eritrea. By writing these protest letters, EU parliamentarians can no longer claim ignorance over the plight of the Eritrean parliamentarians and the overall human rights situation in Eritrea.
Amnesty International, CPJ, Religious organizations and many other human rights organizations have well documented the systematic and gross human rights violations in Eritrea. The EU commissioner and his colleagues can not possibly claim ignorance over the human rights conditions in Eritrea.
From Mr. Bandini to EU’s current Ambassador to Eritrea, Mr. Geert Heikens, have expressed their unequivocal understanding of the PIA regime as unabashed dictatorship, not only flaunting its disrespect for the rule-of-law in Eritrea but even breaching legal agreements with its donors. At a time when Mr. Geert Heikens and other analysts were expecting EU to ask for redress over this breach, instead EU is proceeding by promising to provide additional humanitarian assistance.
Barely few months ago, Eritrean Anti-tyranny Global Solidarity delivered a petition signed by 5,000 Eritreans asking for help in addressing the gross violations of human rights in Eritrea. Among a number of requests, one request was for banning High Eritrean government officials from traveling to the West. EU and its development commissioner seem oblivious to the requests of Eritrean people.
In reality, EU is playing double standards. The Council of European Union Decision 2002/148/EC imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe because “European Union considers that democratic principles are still not upheld in Zimbabwe and that no significant progress has been achieved by your country’s government in the five fields …” What are the five fields?
End of politically motivated violence,
Free and fair elections,
Freedom of the media
Independence of the judiciary
End of illegal occupations of farms.
The sanctions include “the Council also issued travel bans and a freezing of funds and other financial assets for Mugabe and 19 of his colleagues, who were deemed guilty of serious violations of human rights, freedom of opinion, and freedom of association and peaceful assembly in Zimbabwe. The EU was keen to emphasize that the sanctions imposed are designed to affect only those against whom they are imposed, and should not penalize the “ordinary citizens” of Zimbabwe.”
The question that should be posed to EU is whether their diplomatic acts are simply wishy-washy politics or acts based on certain principles. If EU’s acts are guided by certain principles, ‘what is good for the goose is good for the gander’, thus what is good for President Mugabe is good for PIA. In fact, most Eritreans and various international human rights organizations would say that President Mugabe’s treatment of its political opposition is infinitely more humane that PIA’s treatment of its political opposition. Recently, President Mugabe beat up two opposition leaders and yet the opposition leaders were free afterwards to speak to the world media and to seek medical treatment in South Africa and return to Zimbabwe. It can’t be lost with the development commissioner the most inhumane treatment our opposition and prisoners-of-conscious are receiving.
The purpose of this article or any of my other articles isn’t to engage in political debate with those we disagree. If we reduce our discussions to simply political debates, the ones with sticks and money would probably win every time. Political debates are grey areas. As activists, our role is to convert those political debates into moral and legal questions. By doing so, we force the wishy-washy domestic and foreign political players to take unequivocal position on certain fundamental principles.
Thus, our question to the EU development commissioner and EU in general should be,
1. What are the principles applied to deal with different dictators? If EU is leaning hard on those dictators that affect its organizational interests directly and softly on those dictators that don’t affect its organizational interests directly, then EU doesn’t have principles but is playing politics to pursue its own socio-economic and political interests at the expense of certain fundamental principles. The answer to this question has wider ramifications. For instance, the International Criminal Court (ICC) which is the brainchild of the European governments, would lose its credibility if EU is perceived as playing politics to advance its own interests. ICC’s credibility doesn’t emanate from the court itself but the world’s general perceptions towards European governments and EU themselves.
2. According to Mr. Heikens, Eritrea is responsible for restitutions on donated food ‘deemed’ sold to Eritreans. Instead of rectifying this issue, if EU donates more food and PIA continues with his unpunished behavior, who will be ultimately responsible for breach of contract? My fellow readers, you know what wishy-washy donors do, they will continue donating food to the regime although fully aware that the regime is breaching food donation contracts, and then when a democratic government is elected, wishy-washy donors begin flexing their muscles on the democratic government threatening to withhold funding unless the democratic government compensates the donors for breach of contracts under the ousted dictators. This has been donor’s curse for Africa. Instead, EU should withhold any humanitarian assistance until PIA has made restitutions, and then proceed with providing additional humanitarian assistance. If EU fails to enforce its contracts immediately, future Eritrean governments have no moral or legal obligations to compensate for contract breaches committed under previous regimes.
3. If EU decides to resume providing development assistance, the EU development commissioner should be made fully aware that he and his organization are stepping into legal liability. Donors have legal responsibilities to ensure that their project assistances are implemented according to certain human rights codes and worker safety standards. EU can’t extend financial assistance for development projects and pretend or assume that its assistance is being implemented in accordance with EU’s own, and not PFDJ’s, labor and work standards. For instance, if EU provides financial, material or expertise assistance for drinking water project somewhere in Eritrea and if PIA uses slave labor to undertake that project, does EU bear responsibility for the use or condoning the use of slave labor? Absolutely! EU can’t claim ignorance over this issue because the use of slave labor is well documented by international human rights organizations. EU can’t use PIA’s definitions to determine if slave labor is being used in Eritrea. EU has legal obligations to define slave labor according to its own social, legal and political standards. If EU provides as much as one cent for development assistance, EU becomes legally liable for the use of slave labor. We have to make sure that the development commissioner is fully aware of the implications, and more importantly, that we will pursue this issue.
It is not lost with anyone that EU imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe because white farmers are involved. The British government leaned on the EU, and voila EU imposed a sanction. EU’s indirect statement is that black parliamentarians and tens of thousands of innocent Eritreans in PFDJ Dungeons are expendable. This is condescending attitude. But as black Africans, and especially as Eritreans, we should always remember that our traditional African societies have lived under advanced social standards and harmony, and rule of law for centuries while Gauls, Vikings were jumping around from one tree-to-another, and their Roman kin were slaughtering and enslaving their own and the rest of the world. The various dynasties from China to Russia to Europe created the most miserable conditions for their own people and their subjects for centuries, while we Africans lived in relative peace for centuries. We don’t need any condescending attitude from anyone. EU must address issues based on principles, as it claims, and not simply on politics.
Opposition’s Reply?
What happened to opposition’s non-existent foreign relations? PFDJ’s diplomatic skills is somewhere between weak and belligerent. The opposition camp’s diplomatic skill is non-existent. I don’t know which one is worse. If the development commissioner had an ounce of respect for Eritrean opposition and the Eritrean public, he would have put out a statement saying that he discussed regional issues with PIA and that he raised the issue of gross human rights violations in Eritrea with PIA. This would have been an indirect acknowledgment to the Eritrean people in general and the opposition camp specifically that EU considers human rights violations as a serious issue. The fact that Mr. Louise Michel didn’t bother to raise this issue demonstrates that the organization he leads has no respect for Eritreans. The opposition camp should have quickly replied to such condescending attitude.
EDA should understand that nobody cares whether they amend their article 1 or 10 or 50. These are issues that will be addressed by the vast stakeholders in post-PFDJ Eritrea. Over two years to address a couple of articles, while in the end parting their ways, indicates that we remain severely challenged in tackling today’s issues. If EDA was addressing article 4 or 5 while actively engaged in other opposition campaigns, we would have respected their overall efforts. Whether they agree on a couple of articles on issues that can only be addressed in the future doesn’t excuse their lackluster performance today.
If we evaluate the opposition camp, the overwhelming productive opposition efforts are being exerted by non-political organizations. If we examine opposition news organizations, human rights organizations, rallies, petitions, writing campaigns and every other effort has been organized and delivered by these non-political groups, not the political organizations. It escapes me what the function of the political groups is – to amend article 4 and 5 over 10 years?
EDA’s [former] leader popping up on Al-jazeera when the news network probably had no news to broadcast a couple of years was announced to us as a major achievement. Eritrean opposition shouldn’t become news fillers for news broadcasters. Instead, Eritrean opposition must be able to persuade, and if necessary coerce, news networks to give air time to the opposition. When PIA is on Al-Jazeera one day, opposition must strive to be on Al-Jazeera the following day.
Some will say, ‘easier said than done’. Whether Al-Jazeera agrees to opposition’s request to appear on their news program is secondary. The important thing is for the opposition to do things for the sake of doing by proceeding in the following steps,
1. Soon after PIA’s appearance on Al-jazeera, the opposition should make written request to appear on Al-jazeera.
2. If Al-Jazeera doesn’t reply or give a negative reply, the opposition camp would publicize its efforts to the Eritrean public.
3. Never acquiescing to rejections, from time-to-time, the opposition camp would make persistent request to appear on their program and failing to receive a positive reply then to write articles criticizing Al-Jazeera and making sure that a copy of our request and Al-Jazeera’s replies are posted on Eritrean opposition websites. At the very least we could be nuisance and they should believe that when things change around in Eritrea, that they could be left out. No one should ever think that we are too polite because otherwise everyone will shoo us away. They will only call us when they want us, never the other way around.
The approach with EU or others would follow the same steps. Write letters requesting why Mr. Michele didn’t address the oppositions’ concerns. If the development commissioner fails to reply or gives negative reply, immediately send the same information to Eritrean opposition websites. Don’t tell the development commissioner how bad PFDJ is because he knows that already. Tell him what his moral and legal obligations are in a stern but diplomatic language. Use international rights organizations and possibly diplomats such as Mr. Bandini to personally deliver those letters to the development commissioner. When we make a lot of noise, we give more clouts to people like Mr. Bandini. The critical factor is to continually publicize our efforts.
We shouldn’t judge our efforts by end results only. Instead, our efforts are judged by simply doing something and by remaining active. Never discount the power of being just nuisance. We should learn to do something for the sake of doing something. I assure my readers that results will surely follow. If we simply convince ourselves that EU, Al-Jazeera, etc…won’t respond to us because we are insignificant, then we have failed as opposition and as aspiring leaders without even trying.
Failure is part of life. Failure isn’t about falling down, but about not getting up after falling down. Failure is about not learning from one’s mistakes. Failure is about being afraid to try new ways. The opposition camp is replete with individuals who are so sure about their views and “their truth”, yet they have served us failure after failure because they believe that political leadership is about heaping dirt on the other guy, and yet have not provided one iota of positive activism.
At the risk of deviating from my topic, let me interject one thought about shameful politics on the part of Deqebat.com. This response is partially sparked by part 13 of an interview with an elderly Eritrean politician. But in my last article (‘Back to Tribouli’), i.e. even before part 13 of the interview, I alluded to this series of interviews by complaining that these ‘politicians’ begin by stating their principles and then proceed by engaging in the worst form of rumor-mongering thus negating their principles. I included that portion because deqebat.com’s interviewee was engaged in salacious rumors about PIA’s background although claiming at the beginning of his statement that he isn’t comfortable discussing these type of issues. I find such duplicity as the most dangerous type of politics that weakens democracy. We campaign on principles and values – never on rumor mongering or irrelevant issues. The King’s Court intrigues in an age of internet must be refuted with our every ounce of our energy. It is destructive! PIA is hundred times the man deqebat is. Gen. Mesfin is one thousand times the man deqebat is. PIA is a dictator but we know from which angle he is coming. Even more dangerous are those who strive to scratch more wounds while pretending to possess wisdom and pretending to stand by certain principles. Every Eritrean with one iota of blood is Eritrean. Eritrea belongs to anyone that loves it and wants to nurture it. Eritrea doesn’t need those, even those claiming to be deqebat, who try to sow weeds and the seeds of discord. ‘Deqebat’ itself is a medieval concept. In today’s world, migration has changed the face of the world. The victor of the presidential election in France, possibly the second or third most powerful nation in the world, a couple of days ago is born from a Hungarian father who immigrated to France. Deqebat lives in Europe owning or asking to own European citizenship and yet campaigning to dispossess others of their Eritrean identity. My response to deqebat’s continuous destructive politics – at one time on religious issues, and now back to individual politics – would have been muted if deqebat wasn’t the official website of the League of Eritrean Democratic Forces (LEDF) which includes Tesfa Network and Eritrean Congress Party. If this is what LEDF considers as positive politics, then there is something major amiss in their politics. If deqebat and LEDF believe that they are engaging in ‘smart’ politics, I can assure those who are pursuing this destructive political strategy that the rest of us can be equal to the task. We don’t need to engage in destructive politics to engage deqebat but to reveal to our common readers the dangerous path deqebat is pursuing.
Dissention within EDP
In the last two-and-half years, I have tried to address every issue as I understood them. I have criticized almost every political organization. I make no exception to EDP. In writing this portion of my article, my readers should understand that I am not an insider and do not possess any more information than most of my fellow readers. However, I can’t possibly pass up an opportunity to address organizational challenges.
We have heard and read the dissenters views on certain issues. It is difficult to address issues by listening to one side only and without possessing an organization’s bylaws and resolutions passed during its congresses.
The dissention can be examined at various levels, including the overall handling of the dissent and the question of organizational rule-of-law.
Ø Organizational rule-of-law
I will start with this topic because we need only examine technical issues. Unfortunately, the dissenters haven’t quoted any specific sections in EDP organizational laws in arguing their cases. I can’t neither support nor argue against the dissenters without specific information. But one may discuss from general observations.
Even if leadership violates any of the organizational laws or provisions, there is always a mechanism for calling organizational meetings (i.e. extraordinary meeting) at each level: executive, central committee and congress. Dissenters who make up less than the minimum required to call extraordinary meeting at any level can’t force a meeting without the minimum requirements regardless of how serious the violations are.
It is understandable the frustration in gathering membership petition in Diaspora politics. The only means available to the dissenters is to propagate their views through the public medium in order to reach out to other members and to the public beyond that. Based on the number of open supporters for the dissenting views, it appears that they may not have enough votes to call extraordinary meeting.
The dissenters themselves have responsibilities to abide by the organizational laws. If they can’t garner enough votes to call extraordinary meeting, they have two choices: resign or to wait until the next congress [which I hope there is a requirement to meet on periodic basis and is not left to CC’s discretion only]. The dissenters don’t have rights to declare organizational laws as void just because they felt leadership breached an important issue. The dissenters have equal if not more legal responsibilities to ensure that their accusations are backed by facts. In general, accusers have greater legal responsibility. Failing to state the facts and possibly making false accusations is tantamount to engaging in slanderous and libelous acts. One must differentiate between dissent and slanderous statements.
The other question I have is what are the organization rules for replacing central committee members?
Ø The Subjective Analysis
Again, it is difficult to analyze on the basis of publicly available information only. The dissenters accused the Chairman of ignoring them and even engaging in deriding them. Observing our overall Eritrean attitude and poor communications skills, I may be able to deconstruct what may have led to the foul moods on both sides. The dissenting side felt deliberately excluded from an important decision on travel to Ethiopia. The dissenters may have expressed their views in strong terms to the Chairman and they may have even questioned the integrity of the Chairman and the leadership in general. The Chairman, like every other human, felt offended by the remarks and accusations and refuses to meet with them. In addition, leadership takes one step further and flushes them out.
I fully understand the dissenters’ frustrations and possibly leadership’s harsh response. I can imagine the dynamics that leads to communication breakdowns leading to ill-will. Both sides have responsibilities to engage in positive communication, but failing so, in general, leadership has a higher moral responsibility to reason out with the dissenters regardless of the dissenters’ anger which may stifle communication.
In fact, there is a political culture we must change. There is a tendency in Eritrean communities and organizations’ leaderships to believe that the general public or general membership must be kept in the dark until the last minute and only told to accept a fait-accompli. I think this is taking advantage of the good-natured behavior of most people. In the short-run, leadership may avoid internal discord, but in the medium-to- long-run it creates mistrust. Every unpleasant act we attempt to avoid now will come back to hound us in vengeance.
While adherence to organizational rule-of-law remains unequivocal, policies can change with evolving realities. What glues together the rule-of-law on one end and polices at the other end is credibility and integrity. EDP’s leadership may have followed proper procedures to address the dissenters’ issue, but what binds an organization together is not only adherence to legalities but also that efforts be made to make every member feel that he/she is included in the decision making of critical issues. EDP’s credibility would be tarnished by ‘even appearing’ to antagonize any dissenters even if leadership followed proper legal procedures to address issues. The best approach would have been for EDP to allow the dissenters to post on its own website, say, one open letter expressing their dissent over leadership’s decision over the said issue and even allowing them to petition for extraordinary meeting in the same open letter. Even better would be to respond to their dissents both on legal issue and at public relations level. These members shouldn’t be made to feel that they are expendable or that they are troublemakers for dissenting or for trying to petition. They expressed their legitimate concerns. Any dissenter who has strong feelings towards certain issues has a duty to address them. They should not have been made to contact meskerem.net or deqebat.com, which must have been very emotionally difficult for them to do so, but felt they had no other choice. If the dissenters sent their protest letters to asmarino or awate or any other independent opposition news media but they decide to suppress them, then these news organizations have failed to do their jobs. EDP, RC, ENSF or any other political organizations are not immune from criticisms. However, the news websites have to ensure that their posting guidelines are followed and to ensure that the dissenters’ messages aren’t libelous. As for EDP, if it doesn’t want to publish their protests on its own website, EDP should have arranged for asmarino, awate, nharnet or other respectable websites to post their protests. Even if the dissenters have already decided to leave the organization, they should feel that their dissents received fair treatment. Even better would have been if EDP would throw a little reception for the departing members thanking them for their services, giving them certificates of appreciation and for them to keep struggling against the regime in their ways. Deep down, EDP’s leadership may feel angry of what the dissenters may have done to it, as the dissenters feel same towards leadership, but the day we are able to swallow our pride, ego and the need for vindication, if we can overcome that feeling, then we would have won the world. We have to force our mouths to smile even when our stomach is burning. This isn’t insincerity but opening up the way for the healing process. After all, Eritrea has a very small population and everyone counts. This is not necessarily about being nice, but about being fair. We will never agree on all issues, but as long as people feel that they are treated fairly, we can attain our democracy in record time. Human courtesy and respect is above all issues. During these difficult times it won’t be political intrigues that will save Eritrea, but our unequivocal beliefs towards human respect. We can return to political mud-slinging once we have reached political stability in Eritrea. In the meantime, let everyone know that we have unshakeable respect for everyone. If any one believes that our good natured behavior is a weakness, let them cross the line and test our wrath.
EDP carries greater organizational responsibility within the opposition camp than all other opposition parties because it may have the inside track if a sudden change takes place in Eritrea. Other political organizations and individuals may have greater apprehensions towards EDP – thus the continuous political and personal attacks against it. I have supported EDP for its positions on many issues. In the last couple of years, positive developments have allowed the political views of EDP, ENSF, RC and even Mr. Adhanom’s EPM to begin merging which is very encouraging by itself. As important policies are, it is even more important to cultivate trust and credibility. Let the other parties respect your organization even if they disagree with your policies. At the end of the day, on most issues and policies, we rely on trust and credibility we place on our leaders to address many of the issues and policies than each one of us trying to drive from the backseat. In return, leadership should strive to maintain that trust through ‘good-faith’ practices.
Dissent is at the core of our democratic values. The dissenting EDP members have exercised their God-given rights to dissent and have nothing to be concerned about. I respect them for their convictions. My only advice is to be careful in making their public statements and to ensure that they have their legal facts and organizational rules correct. Otherwise they will be committing the same mistakes that they are accusing others of doing. When we dissent, we have to hold ourselves and the people we accuse to higher standards.
Berhan Hagos
May 8, 2007
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Här fängslas flest reportrar
I dag, på Internationella pressfrihetens dag, sitter 119 journalister i fängelse runt om i världen.
Kina toppar denna svarta lista med flest fängslade, tätt följd av Kuba, Etiopien och Eritrea.
Nr 1 – KINA
För sjunde året i rad har Kina den tvivelaktiga äran att vara det största fängelset för journalister. För tillfället sitter 32 journalister fängslade, enligt Reportrar utan gränser. Därtill kommer 48 som dömts till långa fängelsestraff för vad de skrivit på Internet.
Den vanligaste anklagelsen mot de fängslade journalisterna är att de sysslat med ”antistatlig verksamhet”. Andra brottsrubriker som förekommer är ”subversiv verksamhet”, ”avslöjande av statshemligheter” och att de sysslat med ”verksamhet mot statens intressen”.
En av de fängslade journalisterna är Shi Tao som avtjänar ett tioårigt fängelsestraff för att ha ”läckt statshemligheter till utlandet”. Shi Tao fängslades i november 2004 för att han i ett mejl berättat hur regimen ville att medierna skulle bevaka 15-årsdagen av militärens krossande av demonstrationerna vid Himmelska fridens torg. Shi Tao kunde gripas genom att Internetföretaget Yahoo hjälpte till att spåra hans mejl.
Myndigheterna klassificerade inte instruktionerna till medierna som en statshemlighet förrän efter arresteringen. Det är sådant som gör det svårt att jobba som journalist i Kina. Vad regimen anser är en statshemlighet skiftar, vilket gör kinesiska journalister försiktiga och leder till självcensur.
– Vad som tidigare varit publicerat kan plötsligt bli en statshemlighet om ett ämne av någon anledning blir känsligt, säger Ulrika K Engström, frilansjournalist som bland annat jobbar för Svenska Dagbladet.
Hon tar som exempel att risskördens storlek hösten 2005 plötsligt blev en statshemlighet. Kolleger till henne, som jobbar på tidningar i Shanghai, fick instruktioner att inte skriva om problemen med risskörden eftersom det då skulle avslöjas att Kina inte var självförsörjande.
Ämnen som är tabu är massakern på Himmelska fridens torg och att Taiwan inte tillhör Kina.
– När jag jobbade på en lokal tidning i Shanghai fick vi inte skriva om att det fanns fattiga, om gaykulturen, om prostitution eller nämna ordet sex. Om vi ändå skrivit om dessa ämnen skulle ansvarig utgivare ha strukit dem, vilket skulle ha skapat problem för oss med blanka sidor före tryckning. Reglerna ledde till självcensur, säger Ulrika K Engström.
I ett tioårsperspektiv har det blivit enklare att starta tidningar som inte direkt kontrolleras av staten. Varje år kommer det ut hundratals nya tidningar och tidskrifter. De flesta handlar om mode, inredning, nöje, alltså ämnen som befinner sig på tryggt avstånd från statshemligheter.
Tidigare kunde det även förekomma att kinesiska journalister gjorde bra undersökande journalistik om sådant som regimen ansåg nödvändigt att ta upp. Ansåg någon myndighet att det var viktigt med exempelvis miljöproblem kunde den tillåta medier att leta upp missförhållanden som politiker sedan kunde reagera på.
Men sedan den nye presidenten Hu Jintao tillträdde för ett antal år sedan har tumskruvarna mot pressen skruvats åt. En ny lag har införts som gör det förbjudet för lokala kinesiska journalister att åka till och skriva från en annan provins utan tillstånd.
– Den nya ledningen verkar inte se medier som användbara verktyg att spåra upp problem i samhället med, säger frilansjournalisten Ola Wong, som bland annat skriver för Sydsvenskan.
Sedan några år tillbaka pågår det mindre bondeuppror runt om i Kina.Det är arga bönder som protesterar mot att deras åkermark konfiskeras utan kompensation och att fabriker förorenar deras jord.
– Man vill inte att den egna pressen ska fungera som en katalysator för missnöjet så att alla dessa små bränder i tuvor ska utveckla sig till en stor gräsbrand. Det kan vara en anledning till att det blivit svårare att bedriva grävande journalistik, säger Ola Wong.
Ulrika K Engström greps för ett år sedan då hon besökte en av de byar där bönderna protesterade. Hon satt i förhör i åtta timmar och var tvungen att lämna ifrån sig anteckningar och film.
Det begränsade svängrummet för medierna har gjort att många kinesiska journalister resignerat och blivit cyniska. Det är mycket vanligt att journalister och redaktörer tar mutor för att skriva om ett visst företag. Detta kallas för hongbao, rött kuvert. Det är vanligt att halva inkomsten kommer från dessa kuvert. Enligt Ola Wong har kinesiska journalister en hygglig lön, men de lockas att ta emot dessa röda kuvert eftersom de vill leva ett lyxigare liv än vad lönen tillåter.
– Jag frågade en fotograf om det inte är ett moraliskt problem att ta emot mutor. Hon svarade att eftersom de ändå inte får skriva sanningen på grund av politiska skäl kan de lika väl ta emot mutor. Korruptionen kommer från båda hållen, säger Ola Wong.
Nr 2 – KUBA
På andra plats på den svarta listan kommer Kuba med 23 reportrar fängslade. Under loppet av tre dagar i mars 2003 arresterades 82 regimkritiker och oberoende journalister. I dag sitter 23 journalister fängslade. En av de mer kända var Raúl Rivero som dömdes till ett långt fängelsestraff. Han släpptes för ett tag sedan av hälsoskäl och bor i dag i Madrid.
Många av journalisterna som greps hade blivit lurade av en infiltratör. Dagarna före arresteringarna ordnade USAs intressekontor – landet har inga diplomatiska förbindelser med Kuba – ett möte för att diskutera pressfrihet. Den som arrangerade pressträffen, Manuel David Orrio, visade sig vara en infiltratör som varit lierad med säkerhetstjänsten sedan 1992.
– I mitten av 90-talet var han med om att bilda en liten förening för oberoende journalister och hade därför koll på alla, säger Thomas Gustafsson, reporter på Aftonbladet, som under lång tid bevakat Kuba och till hösten kommer med en ny bok om landet.
Vid rättegången mot regimkritikern och journalisten Raúl Rivero var Manuel David Orrio ett av vittnena.
Oppositionen i Kuba var länge kvävd, men i början av 90-talet växte det fram en demokratirörelse. På samma gång blev det även möjligt för oberoende journalister att publicera sig i utländska medier. Genom att dollarn släpptes fri kunde de få betalt i utländsk valuta. Det var just dessa pengar som regimen tog som motiv för sitt tillslag.
– Regeringen har tolkat det som om journalisterna fick betalt av utländsk makt för att skriva ofördelaktiga nyheter om landet, säger Thomas Gustafsson.
Någon möjlighet för oberoende journalister att publicera sig inom landet finns inte. Alla medier kontrolleras av staten och i lagstiftningen står det uttryckligen att det är brottsligt att sprida uppfattningar eller uppgifter som inte är statens offentliga. Det innebär att journalister som publicerar nyheter som inte är godkända av staten uppfattas som förrädare.
– Lagstiftningen gör att det är väldigt svårt att jobba som journalist. Du får helt enkelt inte verka utanför regimen. I Kuba använder man inte tortyr, man dödar inte journalister. I stället dödar man pressen, säger Thomas Gustafsson.
Nr 3 – ETIOPIEN
I Etiopien sitter 18 journalister bakom galler sedan oroligheter och gatudemonstrationer i november förra året. Etiopisk polis hindrade flera tidningar att komma ut, gjorde razzior mot redaktioner, konfiskerade datorer, dokument och annat material.
Nr 4 – ERITREA
I grannlandet Eritrea är för tillfället 13 journalister fängslade. De flesta har inte fått några anklagelser riktade mot sig eller någon rättegång. En av dem är den svenske medborgaren Dawit Isaak som sitter fängslad sedan 2001. En omfattande kampanj har förts i Sverige för att få Dawit Isaak frigiven där bland annat Journalistförbundet och Tidningsutgivarna demonstrerat och uppvaktat den eritreanska ambassaden i Stockholm och krävt att Isaak ska friges. Eritreas ambassadör har hotat med att flytta ambassaden till Norge på grund av de ihärdiga protesterna. Hösten 2005 trodde många att Dawit Isaak skulle friges. Han släpptes ur fängelset. Regimen backade sedan och förklarade att han endast hade fått lämna fängelset för medicinsk vård.
Hans kollega Khaled Abdu tror att det kommer att ta mycket lång tid innan Dawit Isaak släpps, mycket längre än vad regeringen i Sverige och stödföreningar tror.
– Om Dawit blir fri skulle även de andra journalisterna släppas. Det skulle inte finnas någon anledning för regimen att hålla de andra journalisterna. Nu är det en fråga om prestige. Regimen är stolt över att den inte låter sig påverkas av väst, säger Khaled Abdul.
Khaled Abdu lyckades fly landet innan massarresteringarna mot oberoende medier inleddes. Han visste att någonting var i görningen. Han hade redan arresterats fem gånger på grund av sitt arbete som chefredaktör på den oberoende tidningen Adma. Regimen var dock upptagen med kriget mot Etiopien 1996-1997 och hade inte tid att slå ned mot oppositionen.
I dag bor Khaled Abdu i Sverige och är en av initiativtagarna till en nybildad förening för de 20-25 eritreanska journalister som flytt landet och arbetar för pressfrihet i Eritrea. Huvudkontoret ska ligga i Sverige.
Orsaken till arresteringarna av journalisterna var enligt Khaled Abdu att regimen ville tysta den politiska rörelse som började växa fram på 90-talet och som krävde politiska reformer i landet. Dessa politiker fick ingen möjlighet att föra fram sin kritik i de statligt kontrollerade medierna så de vände sig till de oberoende.
– Politikerna förde fram kraftig kritik och därför ville regimen hämnas på dessa politiker. När de oppositionella skulle arresteras visste regimen att de oberoende medierna skulle skriva om detta, så den arresterade även journalister och stängde tidningarna. Sedan anklagade regimen journalisterna för förräderi, att det var en konspiration mellan oppositionella politiker, grannländer och journalister, säger Khaled Abdul.
Ingen av de journalister som sitter i fängelse har fått någon rättegång.
– En dag kanske de släpper dig fri. Om du frågar varför du en gång greps, blir du arresterad på nytt.
Han är pessimistisk inför framtiden och tror inte att någon skulle våga starta en ny oberoende tidning i dag eftersom det inte finns någon lag i Eritrea som skyddar det fria ordet.
– För att det ska råda pressfrihet måste det finnas en grundlag. I dag finns det inte en sådan. Vi har elastiska lagar som regimen ändrar efter hur det passar den. Först när Eritrea blir ett demokratiskt land vågar någon starta en oberoende tidning, säger Khaled Abdu
Kina toppar denna svarta lista med flest fängslade, tätt följd av Kuba, Etiopien och Eritrea.
Nr 1 – KINA
För sjunde året i rad har Kina den tvivelaktiga äran att vara det största fängelset för journalister. För tillfället sitter 32 journalister fängslade, enligt Reportrar utan gränser. Därtill kommer 48 som dömts till långa fängelsestraff för vad de skrivit på Internet.
Den vanligaste anklagelsen mot de fängslade journalisterna är att de sysslat med ”antistatlig verksamhet”. Andra brottsrubriker som förekommer är ”subversiv verksamhet”, ”avslöjande av statshemligheter” och att de sysslat med ”verksamhet mot statens intressen”.
En av de fängslade journalisterna är Shi Tao som avtjänar ett tioårigt fängelsestraff för att ha ”läckt statshemligheter till utlandet”. Shi Tao fängslades i november 2004 för att han i ett mejl berättat hur regimen ville att medierna skulle bevaka 15-årsdagen av militärens krossande av demonstrationerna vid Himmelska fridens torg. Shi Tao kunde gripas genom att Internetföretaget Yahoo hjälpte till att spåra hans mejl.
Myndigheterna klassificerade inte instruktionerna till medierna som en statshemlighet förrän efter arresteringen. Det är sådant som gör det svårt att jobba som journalist i Kina. Vad regimen anser är en statshemlighet skiftar, vilket gör kinesiska journalister försiktiga och leder till självcensur.
– Vad som tidigare varit publicerat kan plötsligt bli en statshemlighet om ett ämne av någon anledning blir känsligt, säger Ulrika K Engström, frilansjournalist som bland annat jobbar för Svenska Dagbladet.
Hon tar som exempel att risskördens storlek hösten 2005 plötsligt blev en statshemlighet. Kolleger till henne, som jobbar på tidningar i Shanghai, fick instruktioner att inte skriva om problemen med risskörden eftersom det då skulle avslöjas att Kina inte var självförsörjande.
Ämnen som är tabu är massakern på Himmelska fridens torg och att Taiwan inte tillhör Kina.
– När jag jobbade på en lokal tidning i Shanghai fick vi inte skriva om att det fanns fattiga, om gaykulturen, om prostitution eller nämna ordet sex. Om vi ändå skrivit om dessa ämnen skulle ansvarig utgivare ha strukit dem, vilket skulle ha skapat problem för oss med blanka sidor före tryckning. Reglerna ledde till självcensur, säger Ulrika K Engström.
I ett tioårsperspektiv har det blivit enklare att starta tidningar som inte direkt kontrolleras av staten. Varje år kommer det ut hundratals nya tidningar och tidskrifter. De flesta handlar om mode, inredning, nöje, alltså ämnen som befinner sig på tryggt avstånd från statshemligheter.
Tidigare kunde det även förekomma att kinesiska journalister gjorde bra undersökande journalistik om sådant som regimen ansåg nödvändigt att ta upp. Ansåg någon myndighet att det var viktigt med exempelvis miljöproblem kunde den tillåta medier att leta upp missförhållanden som politiker sedan kunde reagera på.
Men sedan den nye presidenten Hu Jintao tillträdde för ett antal år sedan har tumskruvarna mot pressen skruvats åt. En ny lag har införts som gör det förbjudet för lokala kinesiska journalister att åka till och skriva från en annan provins utan tillstånd.
– Den nya ledningen verkar inte se medier som användbara verktyg att spåra upp problem i samhället med, säger frilansjournalisten Ola Wong, som bland annat skriver för Sydsvenskan.
Sedan några år tillbaka pågår det mindre bondeuppror runt om i Kina.Det är arga bönder som protesterar mot att deras åkermark konfiskeras utan kompensation och att fabriker förorenar deras jord.
– Man vill inte att den egna pressen ska fungera som en katalysator för missnöjet så att alla dessa små bränder i tuvor ska utveckla sig till en stor gräsbrand. Det kan vara en anledning till att det blivit svårare att bedriva grävande journalistik, säger Ola Wong.
Ulrika K Engström greps för ett år sedan då hon besökte en av de byar där bönderna protesterade. Hon satt i förhör i åtta timmar och var tvungen att lämna ifrån sig anteckningar och film.
Det begränsade svängrummet för medierna har gjort att många kinesiska journalister resignerat och blivit cyniska. Det är mycket vanligt att journalister och redaktörer tar mutor för att skriva om ett visst företag. Detta kallas för hongbao, rött kuvert. Det är vanligt att halva inkomsten kommer från dessa kuvert. Enligt Ola Wong har kinesiska journalister en hygglig lön, men de lockas att ta emot dessa röda kuvert eftersom de vill leva ett lyxigare liv än vad lönen tillåter.
– Jag frågade en fotograf om det inte är ett moraliskt problem att ta emot mutor. Hon svarade att eftersom de ändå inte får skriva sanningen på grund av politiska skäl kan de lika väl ta emot mutor. Korruptionen kommer från båda hållen, säger Ola Wong.
Nr 2 – KUBA
På andra plats på den svarta listan kommer Kuba med 23 reportrar fängslade. Under loppet av tre dagar i mars 2003 arresterades 82 regimkritiker och oberoende journalister. I dag sitter 23 journalister fängslade. En av de mer kända var Raúl Rivero som dömdes till ett långt fängelsestraff. Han släpptes för ett tag sedan av hälsoskäl och bor i dag i Madrid.
Många av journalisterna som greps hade blivit lurade av en infiltratör. Dagarna före arresteringarna ordnade USAs intressekontor – landet har inga diplomatiska förbindelser med Kuba – ett möte för att diskutera pressfrihet. Den som arrangerade pressträffen, Manuel David Orrio, visade sig vara en infiltratör som varit lierad med säkerhetstjänsten sedan 1992.
– I mitten av 90-talet var han med om att bilda en liten förening för oberoende journalister och hade därför koll på alla, säger Thomas Gustafsson, reporter på Aftonbladet, som under lång tid bevakat Kuba och till hösten kommer med en ny bok om landet.
Vid rättegången mot regimkritikern och journalisten Raúl Rivero var Manuel David Orrio ett av vittnena.
Oppositionen i Kuba var länge kvävd, men i början av 90-talet växte det fram en demokratirörelse. På samma gång blev det även möjligt för oberoende journalister att publicera sig i utländska medier. Genom att dollarn släpptes fri kunde de få betalt i utländsk valuta. Det var just dessa pengar som regimen tog som motiv för sitt tillslag.
– Regeringen har tolkat det som om journalisterna fick betalt av utländsk makt för att skriva ofördelaktiga nyheter om landet, säger Thomas Gustafsson.
Någon möjlighet för oberoende journalister att publicera sig inom landet finns inte. Alla medier kontrolleras av staten och i lagstiftningen står det uttryckligen att det är brottsligt att sprida uppfattningar eller uppgifter som inte är statens offentliga. Det innebär att journalister som publicerar nyheter som inte är godkända av staten uppfattas som förrädare.
– Lagstiftningen gör att det är väldigt svårt att jobba som journalist. Du får helt enkelt inte verka utanför regimen. I Kuba använder man inte tortyr, man dödar inte journalister. I stället dödar man pressen, säger Thomas Gustafsson.
Nr 3 – ETIOPIEN
I Etiopien sitter 18 journalister bakom galler sedan oroligheter och gatudemonstrationer i november förra året. Etiopisk polis hindrade flera tidningar att komma ut, gjorde razzior mot redaktioner, konfiskerade datorer, dokument och annat material.
Nr 4 – ERITREA
I grannlandet Eritrea är för tillfället 13 journalister fängslade. De flesta har inte fått några anklagelser riktade mot sig eller någon rättegång. En av dem är den svenske medborgaren Dawit Isaak som sitter fängslad sedan 2001. En omfattande kampanj har förts i Sverige för att få Dawit Isaak frigiven där bland annat Journalistförbundet och Tidningsutgivarna demonstrerat och uppvaktat den eritreanska ambassaden i Stockholm och krävt att Isaak ska friges. Eritreas ambassadör har hotat med att flytta ambassaden till Norge på grund av de ihärdiga protesterna. Hösten 2005 trodde många att Dawit Isaak skulle friges. Han släpptes ur fängelset. Regimen backade sedan och förklarade att han endast hade fått lämna fängelset för medicinsk vård.
Hans kollega Khaled Abdu tror att det kommer att ta mycket lång tid innan Dawit Isaak släpps, mycket längre än vad regeringen i Sverige och stödföreningar tror.
– Om Dawit blir fri skulle även de andra journalisterna släppas. Det skulle inte finnas någon anledning för regimen att hålla de andra journalisterna. Nu är det en fråga om prestige. Regimen är stolt över att den inte låter sig påverkas av väst, säger Khaled Abdul.
Khaled Abdu lyckades fly landet innan massarresteringarna mot oberoende medier inleddes. Han visste att någonting var i görningen. Han hade redan arresterats fem gånger på grund av sitt arbete som chefredaktör på den oberoende tidningen Adma. Regimen var dock upptagen med kriget mot Etiopien 1996-1997 och hade inte tid att slå ned mot oppositionen.
I dag bor Khaled Abdu i Sverige och är en av initiativtagarna till en nybildad förening för de 20-25 eritreanska journalister som flytt landet och arbetar för pressfrihet i Eritrea. Huvudkontoret ska ligga i Sverige.
Orsaken till arresteringarna av journalisterna var enligt Khaled Abdu att regimen ville tysta den politiska rörelse som började växa fram på 90-talet och som krävde politiska reformer i landet. Dessa politiker fick ingen möjlighet att föra fram sin kritik i de statligt kontrollerade medierna så de vände sig till de oberoende.
– Politikerna förde fram kraftig kritik och därför ville regimen hämnas på dessa politiker. När de oppositionella skulle arresteras visste regimen att de oberoende medierna skulle skriva om detta, så den arresterade även journalister och stängde tidningarna. Sedan anklagade regimen journalisterna för förräderi, att det var en konspiration mellan oppositionella politiker, grannländer och journalister, säger Khaled Abdul.
Ingen av de journalister som sitter i fängelse har fått någon rättegång.
– En dag kanske de släpper dig fri. Om du frågar varför du en gång greps, blir du arresterad på nytt.
Han är pessimistisk inför framtiden och tror inte att någon skulle våga starta en ny oberoende tidning i dag eftersom det inte finns någon lag i Eritrea som skyddar det fria ordet.
– För att det ska råda pressfrihet måste det finnas en grundlag. I dag finns det inte en sådan. Vi har elastiska lagar som regimen ändrar efter hur det passar den. Först när Eritrea blir ett demokratiskt land vågar någon starta en oberoende tidning, säger Khaled Abdu
Göteborg: Dawit Isaaks kollega på yttrandefrihetsseminarium
Han misshandlades och torterades under ett års tid för att ha skrivit i en fri tidning i Eritrea. Nu befinner sig journalisten Semret Seyoum i Sverige. Hans kollega Dawit Isaak är dock fortfarande samvetsfånge. Den 3 maj är FN: s pressfrihetsdag. Dagen innan anordnades ett yttrandefrihetsseminarium på Världskulturmuseet i Göteborg. Utrikesdepartementet kom inte på grund av den tysta diplomatin med Eritrea.
Semret Seyoum grundade den eritreanska tidningen Setit, som Isaak var delägare i. När regeringen i Eritrea gjorde tillslaget mot den fria pressen 2001 arresterades både Semret Seyoum och Dawit Isaak. Utan att få veta varför blev dock Semret Seyoum frisläppt ett år senare. Han lyckades ta sig över gränsen till Sudan och kom sedan till Sverige med hjälp av Unicef.Semret Seyoum deltog, liksom Dawit Isaaks bror Esayas Isak, journalisten och 2003 års Human Rights Watch-pristagare, Khaled Abdu och författaren och statsvetaren Johan Karlsson på en temadag om yttrandefrihet på Världskulturmuseet i Göteborg den 2 maj. Dagen anordnades av Amnesty.De diskuterade bland annat om det finns en möjlighet för Dawit Isaak att bli frisläppt på samma sätt som Semret Seyoum.
– Det är en oberäknelig regim som bara ger falskt hopp, menade Khaled Abdu och syftade på att Dawit Isaak blev frisläppt i tre dagar 2005, men fängslades igen."Svensk media glömmer hela situationen"Khaled Abdu kritiserade även svensk medias fokusering kring Dawit Isaak.– Man får inte glömma att det finns fler eritreaner som är fängslade, sa Khaled Abdu. Varför skulle de frisläppa Dawit Isaak men inte de andra? Svensk media fokuserar på Dawit, men hela situationen glöms bort.Enligt panelen finns det idag tusentals eritreanska samvetsfångar.Vad kan då göras för att Dawit Isaak och andra fängslade journalister ska bli fria?
Dawit Isaaks bror, Esayas Isak, menade att den bästa metoden är om Sveriges utrikesminister åker till Eritrea.
– Den tysta diplomatin som Sveriges regering använt sig av har ju inte fungerat. Man kan fråga sig varför vi inte sätter hårt mot hårt istället? Vi borde skicka utrikesministern. Vi är nu inne på den fjärde sedan Dawit blev fängslad. Ingen av dem har åkt till Eritrea!– Carl Bildt borde åka, helst imorn! UD säger att om vi skickar vår utrikesminister och Eritrea ändå inte agerar så har vi använt det sista kortet. Men journalister har dött i fängelset, och Dawit som var helt frisk innan har fått hjärtproblem, det börjar bli dags nu.UD kom inte på grund av tyst diplomatiKhaled Abdu höll med om att den tysta diplomatin inte fungerar.– För mig är det bara ett skäl att inte låta kritikerna komma till tals. Vi får inte veta något om vad de gör. Och inget händer.Enligt en av kvällens arrangörer berättade att Utrikesdepartementet (UD) var inbjudna till seminariet.– Men de avböjde på grund av den tysta diplomatin.– Det brukar vara Eritreas ambassadör som tackar nej till såna här tillställningar, jämförde Johan Karlsson.
Cecilia Wigström (fp), ordförande i den tvärpolitiska riksdagsgruppen för Dawit Isaak, satt i publiken och berättade att hon ska diskutera frågan med Carl Bildt på tisdag.– Jag kommer bland annat ta upp frågan om att EU bör frysa biståndet till Eritrea.Esayas Isak tror inte att oppositionen i Eritrea har möjlighet att stoppa regeringen utan att trycket måste komma just utifrån.– Även exileritreaner är rädda att agera eftersom vi har släkt kvar i landet, men trycket måste komma från omvärlden. Vi måste pressa UD och sprida budskapet!
Elin Schwartz
Semret Seyoum grundade den eritreanska tidningen Setit, som Isaak var delägare i. När regeringen i Eritrea gjorde tillslaget mot den fria pressen 2001 arresterades både Semret Seyoum och Dawit Isaak. Utan att få veta varför blev dock Semret Seyoum frisläppt ett år senare. Han lyckades ta sig över gränsen till Sudan och kom sedan till Sverige med hjälp av Unicef.Semret Seyoum deltog, liksom Dawit Isaaks bror Esayas Isak, journalisten och 2003 års Human Rights Watch-pristagare, Khaled Abdu och författaren och statsvetaren Johan Karlsson på en temadag om yttrandefrihet på Världskulturmuseet i Göteborg den 2 maj. Dagen anordnades av Amnesty.De diskuterade bland annat om det finns en möjlighet för Dawit Isaak att bli frisläppt på samma sätt som Semret Seyoum.
– Det är en oberäknelig regim som bara ger falskt hopp, menade Khaled Abdu och syftade på att Dawit Isaak blev frisläppt i tre dagar 2005, men fängslades igen."Svensk media glömmer hela situationen"Khaled Abdu kritiserade även svensk medias fokusering kring Dawit Isaak.– Man får inte glömma att det finns fler eritreaner som är fängslade, sa Khaled Abdu. Varför skulle de frisläppa Dawit Isaak men inte de andra? Svensk media fokuserar på Dawit, men hela situationen glöms bort.Enligt panelen finns det idag tusentals eritreanska samvetsfångar.Vad kan då göras för att Dawit Isaak och andra fängslade journalister ska bli fria?
Dawit Isaaks bror, Esayas Isak, menade att den bästa metoden är om Sveriges utrikesminister åker till Eritrea.
– Den tysta diplomatin som Sveriges regering använt sig av har ju inte fungerat. Man kan fråga sig varför vi inte sätter hårt mot hårt istället? Vi borde skicka utrikesministern. Vi är nu inne på den fjärde sedan Dawit blev fängslad. Ingen av dem har åkt till Eritrea!– Carl Bildt borde åka, helst imorn! UD säger att om vi skickar vår utrikesminister och Eritrea ändå inte agerar så har vi använt det sista kortet. Men journalister har dött i fängelset, och Dawit som var helt frisk innan har fått hjärtproblem, det börjar bli dags nu.UD kom inte på grund av tyst diplomatiKhaled Abdu höll med om att den tysta diplomatin inte fungerar.– För mig är det bara ett skäl att inte låta kritikerna komma till tals. Vi får inte veta något om vad de gör. Och inget händer.Enligt en av kvällens arrangörer berättade att Utrikesdepartementet (UD) var inbjudna till seminariet.– Men de avböjde på grund av den tysta diplomatin.– Det brukar vara Eritreas ambassadör som tackar nej till såna här tillställningar, jämförde Johan Karlsson.
Cecilia Wigström (fp), ordförande i den tvärpolitiska riksdagsgruppen för Dawit Isaak, satt i publiken och berättade att hon ska diskutera frågan med Carl Bildt på tisdag.– Jag kommer bland annat ta upp frågan om att EU bör frysa biståndet till Eritrea.Esayas Isak tror inte att oppositionen i Eritrea har möjlighet att stoppa regeringen utan att trycket måste komma just utifrån.– Även exileritreaner är rädda att agera eftersom vi har släkt kvar i landet, men trycket måste komma från omvärlden. Vi måste pressa UD och sprida budskapet!
Elin Schwartz
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)