Press Freedom in the Middle East –

Trends and Mechanisms of Repression

Testimony Prepared for Delivery

before the

Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia

House Committee on Foreign Affairs

At a hearing entitled:

“That which is not obligatory is prohibited:

Censorship and Incitement in the Arab World”

January 22, 2008

Richard Eisendorf, Senior Program Manager for the Middle East and North Africa, Freedom House, Washington D.C.

Chairman Ackerman, members of the subcommittee and staff, thank you for calling this important hearing today and for inviting Freedom House to testify.

Freedom House has been monitoring media freedom around the world for almost three decades. Freedom House’s annual press freedom survey evaluates media freedom by answering a series of questions under three areas that historically have been used to restrict the flow of news information as well as the ability of journalists to operate freely: 1) legal environment, 2) political environment, and 3) economic environment.

Freedom House’s 2007 report shows that the Middle East and North Africa region continued to show the lowest region-wide ratings with respect to press freedoms. Out of 19 countries, only 1 country was rated Free, 2 were rated Partly Free, and 16 were rated Not Free. While the ratings for 2008 have not yet been finalized, the press freedom situation has not changed substantially in the past calendar year.

During the last several years we had noted improvements in press freedom in the region as a whole, due to the continued spread and influence of pan-Arab satellite television networks and the internet, which serve as alternative sources of news and information. In some countries, print media have also become more critical as journalists have taken the lead in pushing the boundaries of acceptable coverage, even when faced with violence or, more commonly, legal reprisals. However, this trend reversed in 2006, with several countries that had previously shown improvement moving in a negative direction, and has continued in 2007.

The governments of the Middle East region have used various mechanisms in order to limit press freedoms. These mechanisms include:

1) Extremely Restrictive Legislation

Though many constitutions in the Middle East and North Africa provide for some form of freedom of expression and the press, most of the region’s governments have passed laws criminalizing the publication of certain types of content. These pieces of legislation often include vaguely worded provisions that leave the authorities and courts room to adjust the “red lines” as they see fit. The most common restrictions are on:

• Writing critical of the president, monarch, or royal family--such provisions exist in almost every Arab country. Algeria, for example, has laws criminalizing defamation of the president, the Parliament, the judiciary, and military.

• Writing critical of Islam--these provisions are particularly common in Iran and other Gulf states.

• Information that is perceived as harmful to the country’s reputation--these provisions have been used in Egypt and elsewhere to punish those publicizing torture or other human rights abuses.

• “False information” or rumors, especially those deemed to potentially disrupt public order or threaten “the unity of the people.” In Egypt, for instance, despite much anticipated amendments to the Press Law in 2006, there continue to exist provisions that criminalize the publication of “false news” or criticism of the president and foreign leaders. In 2007, there were multiple cases of journalists facing prosecution or being imprisoned for violating these provisions. An Al-Jazeera journalist was sentenced to six months in prison on a charge of “possessing and giving false pictures about the internal situation in Egypt that could undermine the dignity of the country” in connection with a documentary she was making about police torture in Egypt. In another set of cases, four editors were sentenced to one year in prison for “publishing false information likely to disturb public order.”

• Information likely to hurt relations with other countries--in 2007, journalists in Jordan and Syria were either censored or prosecuted for attempting to publish information deemed detrimental to the state’s relationship with Saudi Arabia.

In many cases, the above restrictions are outlined not only in the press law but also in emergency legislation and the penal code. In Syria, the Emergency Law, in place since 1962, broadly mandates the censorship of letters, publications, broadcasts, and other forms of communication. When prosecuted under such alternative legislation, journalists are likely to face prosecution before special State Security Courts that allow fewer due process rights. Examples of this occurred in Egypt and Oman in 2007.

A related phenomenon is that some states have adopted a milder press law, in part to subdue international pressure, while retaining criminal punishments under other legislation and using those provisions to imprison journalists and hamper their ability to report freely. This occurred in Jordan in 2007, where articles allowing imprisonment as punishment for published material were dropped in the Press and Publications Law passed in March. They were replaced, however, with high fines reaching $40,000. Moreover, imprisonment of writers and journalists remains possible under both security laws and the penal code. It was under the penal code that ex-legislator Ahmad Oweidi Abbadi was sentenced to two years in prison in October for an open letter he posted online, writing to U.S. Senator Harry Reid about government corruption.

In addition to general restrictions on press freedom, in several countries there are also specific issues that are particularly taboo.

In Syria, for example, criticism of the government’s policy in Lebanon is not tolerated. In May 2007, writer and journalist Michael Kilo was sentenced to three years in prison on charges of “weakening national sentiment” because he had signed the “Beirut-Damascus, Damascus-Beirut” joint statement in May 2006. The statement had been signed by Kilo and 300 other Syrian and Lebanese intellectuals and stresses the need to respect the two countries’ sovereignty and independence.

In Bahrain, the so-called Bandargate Scandal was particularly sensitive in 2007. The scandal refers to a report published by Dr. Salah Al Bandar, a British consultant to the government, which alleged high level involvement in electoral fraud meant to oppress and disenfranchise the country’s Shia majority. Following its publication, the government imposed a ban restricting any media outlet from reporting on the document. As a result of continuing to highlight the report, several journalists have been jailed and are facing long prison sentences.

2) Dominating Broadcast Media and Controlling Independent Publications

In many Middle East countries, there are significant restrictions on registering and publishing independent media. Most of the media is state-owned or owned by private individuals with strong ties to the government. The regimes are particularly keen to maintain control over broadcast media like radio or television as these are the main sources of information for the majority of the population, particularly where illiteracy rates are high. The exception is the popular Pan-Arab satellite television stations, especially the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera. In most states, the government has not made an attempt to interfere with these broadcasts or crackdown on satellite installation.

In Syria, with the exception of a handful of radio stations that do not broadcast news or report on political issues, radio and television outlets are all state-owned. Satellite dishes are common, and the government makes no attempt to interfere with satellite broadcasts.

In Tunisia, the authorities continue to vet and censor newspapers published locally as well as those coming from outside the country. Tunisia’s print media comprise several private pro-government and government-owned newspapers. Editors of the private media are close associates of Ben Ali’s government and typically heap praise on the leadership and its policies, while the government withholds advertising funds from publications that do not provide sufficiently favorable coverage.

In Saudi Arabia, there are 10 daily newspapers, all owned by either the government, members of the royal family, or close associates of the royal family. Broadcast media are also in the grip of the government, which owns and operates all television and radio stations.

In Egypt, the government is at least a partial owner of all of the country’s three largest newspapers, whose editors are appointed by the president. Privately owned domestic broadcasters are not allowed to air news bulletins and focus instead on music and entertainment.

In some countries, the government allows for a broader array of print publications, including ones owned by the opposition. Nevertheless, the regimes are able to exert influence over these independent publications by pressuring printing houses who serve them or controlling appointments and registration. In the West Bank and Gaza Strip, some media outlets have been forced off the air because of raids on their stations by Israeli forces.

In Algeria, the government uses its control over the country’s printing presses and a state advertising agency to influence the independent print media. Authorities have on several occasions punished critical newspapers by suddenly demanding payment for debts owed to the state printer.

In Bahrain, the print media are privately owned and there are nearly 100 Bahraini newspapers in circulation. Nevertheless, the government retains the right to control publishing policies, appoint the papers’ officials and dismiss journalists.

In Egypt, opposition parties may form their own newspapers, but the licenses are granted by the Shura Council, one-third of whose members are appointed by the president.

3) Targeted Assaults, Intimidation and Physical Danger

In addition to threats of legal sanctions or shuttering publications, journalists in the region continue to be at risk of surveillance, intimidation, assault, imprisonment and in some cases death for carrying out their professional duties. In most states, the primary source of these dangers is the government, though in Iraq, Lebanon and the West Bank and Gaza Strip, non-state actors were also responsible for violence against journalists.

In Egypt, there were at least 14 reported cases of journalists and editors being arrested and prosecuted in 2007, including convictions for up to two years. Cases of less formal abuse have also been reported in the past. In 2004, Abdel Halim Kandil, editor-in-chief of Al-Nasery newspaper which has been very critical of the president was abducted late at night by four masked men and taken in an unmarked van to an isolated desert area 50 miles outside Cairo, where he was stripped naked, beaten and abandoned. In May 2005, Chaïmaa Abul-Kheir and Abir Al-Askari, reporters from the independent newspaper Al-Dustur, who were covering demonstrations by the Kefaya movement, were sexually harassed in public by pro-government thugs and police. 

In Iran, the general trend of arresting and sentencing journalists continued in 2007 and seemed to expand to include new sectors of the profession. There was a harsh crackdown on Kurdish journalists, with two reporters being sentenced to death by a revolutionary tribunal in the northwest. There were also several cases of female activists and journalists being detained for protesting gender inequality, as well as arrests of dual citizens.

In Tunisia, journalists who cross the government’s red lines have been harassed, beaten, imprisoned under harsh conditions, subjected to smear campaigns, prevented from leaving the country, and threatened.

In Jordan, intelligence agencies watch journalists closely, and the government of Prime Minister Ma’ruf al-Bakhit has given free rein to these agencies, the police, and prosecutors to clamp down on legitimate speech. Editors and journalists report that they have received official warnings to refrain from publishing certain articles or to avoid certain topics.

In Saudi Arabia, recent years have seen a rise in the number of journalists detained, particularly those who criticized the government and the religious establishment. Through harsh measures, and with the help of heavy self-censorship, the government and allied clerics are able to overcome attempts by journalists to exercise limited freedom of action.

In 2007, Iraq continued to be arguably the most dangerous country in the world for journalists. The August 30 killing of a translator for CBS marked the 200^th journalist killed since the invasion by coalition forces in March 2003. The situation is especially tenuous for Iraqis employed by foreign media because they are perceived as spies or infidels and therefore targeted by both Shiite and Sunni militants.

In the Israeli Occupied Territories, Israel’s army and security services continued to commit a range of press abuses in 2007. Journalists were subject to gunfire, physical abuse, arrest and substantial limits on their freedom of movement. According to Reporters Without Borders, as of July, nine journalists had been wounded by Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) fire. This included Imad Ghanem, a cameraman for the Hamas-affiliated satellite channel al-Aqsa, whose legs were amputated after Israeli tanks opened fire on him.

The circumstances for reporting from the areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority took a further turn for the worse in 2007, as journalists came under attack from Fatah and Hamas-affiliated militant factions, especially after internecine violence broke out in the Gaza Strip in May. At least three media employees were killed by gunmen in May and a building housing foreign bureaus was caught in crossfire between Hamas and Fatah forces. Continuing a disturbing trend from previous years, several foreign journalists were kidnapped by militants in 2007. The most prominent victim was the BBC’s Alan Johnston, who was kidnapped in March and held for 114 days, making it by far the longest-lasting abduction in Gaza to date.

4) Control of Internet Access and Retaliation against Bloggers

As the number of people accessing the internet in the Middle East continues to grow, the governments in the region have taken a variety of steps to restrict discussion of unwelcome topics through this new media and limit its potential to undermine more traditional efforts to control information. The measures taken include arresting bloggers and cyberdissidents, retaining a monopoly over internet service providers, and requiring user registration.

A. Crackdown on Online Dissent

In recent years, governments have increasingly targeted bloggers and others expressing their opinions online for detentions and imprisonment. The year 2007 saw a continuation and even a worsening of this trend, as several prominent online critics who had previously been spared were arrested.

In December 2007, a leading blogger in Saudi Arabia, Fouad al-Farhan, was arrested, apparently for criticizing the government and voicing support for political prisoners in his blog posts.

In Egypt, blogger Abdel Kareem Nabil Suleiman (better known as Kareem Amer) was sentenced to four years in prison in February 2007 for posting articles critical of Islam and defaming the president on his blog. The verdict was upheld by an appeals court in March. In November, it was reported that he had been tortured and held in solitary confinement after he uncovered an act of corruption in the prison.

In Iran, Arash Sigarchi, a blogger who campaigned actively for the promotion of diverse viewpoints through internet journalism, was sentenced to three years in prison in January 2006 for “insulting the Supreme Guide” and publishing “propaganda against the regime.”

Human Rights Watch reported in October 2007 that in Syria, two young men had been held in incommunicado detention since June for posting online views that were critical of the Syrian government. Karim Arbaji, 29, was detained for moderating a popular online forum for Syrian youth and Tarke Bisi, 22, was held because he “went online and insulted security services.”

B. Blocking Websites and Controlling Internet Service Providers

In addition to strong-arm tactics of harassing and arresting cyberdissidents and bloggers, a large number of governments in the region have instituted subtler, more technical mechanisms for limiting users’ access to unwelcome content. While some countries like Israel, Jordan or Iraq allow unrestricted access to the internet, the majority use a variety of techniques to restrict this new media.

In Syria, the government blocks websites that span a range of categories and especially filters ones that criticize government policies or support opposition groups. Arabic newspapers outside Syria that carry materials critical of the government are also censored.

Trying to rein in its 100,000 bloggers, Iran reportedly adds 1,000 new websites to a blacklist each month. YouTube, The New York Times website, and the English version of Wikipedia were all blacklisted in December 2006.

A key technique used by governments to improve their capacity to monitor and limit internet access has been to retain a monopoly over ownership of local internet service providers (ISPs). This has been particularly popular among the Gulf States.

In Bahrain, the only ISP is the government-owned Batelco, which prohibits the country’s 135,000 users from accessing anti-government, anti-Islamic and human rights websites. By the end of 2006, almost two dozen sites had been blocked.

In Oman, the government-owned ISP Omantel heavily filters and monitors access. The authorities also created an Internet Service Manual, which contains a lengthy list of prohibited online topics, including defamation of the royal family and false data or rumors.

In Qatar, the government controls the local ISP which enables it to direct users to a proxy server that blocks materials deemed inconsistent with the “religious, cultural, political, and moral values of the country.” The proxy server maintains a list of banned websites and blocks users from accessing them.

In the UAE, the only ISP is owned and operated by a government corporation called the Emirates Telecommunications Corporation (Etisalat). Similar to Qatar, users find themselves directed to a proxy server that blocks materials inconsistent with the “values of the country” and maintains a list of banned websites.

Saudi Arabia’s authorities have taken a slightly more sophisticated approach. Though they approved applications for over 40 privately owned ISPs in 1998, all of them are linked to a main server through a gateway run by a government institution called King Abdul-Aziz City for Science and Technology. This allows the government to tightly block and filter unwanted websites despite the apparent diversity of providers.

C. User Registration Requirements and Internet Café Surveillance

Another common tactic is requiring sites or users to register, removing the anonymity that provides a veil of safety for internet users and bloggers in particular.

According to Human Rights Watch, in Syria, the Ministry of Communication and Technology ordered in July 2007 that all website owners must display “the name and e-mail of the writer of any article or comment [appearing on their site] . . . clearly and in detail, under threat of warning the owner of the website, then restricting access to the website temporarily and in case the violation is repeated, permanently banning the website.” There has already been at least one documented application of the directive, when the Ministry of Communications and Technology restricted access to http://www.damaspost.com, a popular Syrian news site, for 24 hours after a commentator named “Jamal” criticized the head of the Journalists’ Union and the al-Ba`ath newspaper for nepotism.

In Iran, a cabinet decision in November 2006 ordered all websites dealing with Iran to register with the authorities. Though implementing the regulation would be difficult, the edict’s existence creates an ominous legal pretest for arbitrarily banning more sites.

The U.S. State Department reported that in Kuwait, internet café owners are required to obtain the names and identification of users and must submit the information to the Ministry of Communication if requested.

Syria has also been known to require internet café owners to spy on customers that access “sensitive” sites. According to HRW, in December 2006, security agents arrested `Ahed al-Hindi, 23, and one of his relatives, in an internet cafe in Damascus, because al-Hindi had sent comments to overseas opposition websites. The owner of the internet cafe had filmed al-Hindi posting the comments. They were released on January 15, 2007.

Potential for Positive Developments

Despite the highly restrictive media environment in the Middle East, there were several examples in 2007 that point to some of the areas from which positive development may come.

· The role of the courts: Much of the legal harassment and manipulation, both in terms of defamation suits and legislative interpretation, relate closely to the quality and independence of the court system and the general status of rule of law in the country. Improvements in these areas are likely to yield greater press freedom.

o In Egypt, where the courts are relatively assertive compared to elsewhere in the region, a recent court ruling illustrates the potential protection the legal system can offer free expression. In December 2007, The Administrative Judicial Court rejected the request of a lower judge to have 51 websites related to human rights blocked. An attempt by Judge Abdel Fatahs Murad to block the websites of the Hisham Mubarak Law Center, HRinfo and other human rights and news websites was rejected by the Admin court in a Dec 29 decision whose dicta also emphasized support for freedom of expression.

o Even in the more restrictive environment of Syria, there has been a legal push-back against internet censorship. In November 2007, the administrator of a website (Al-Nazaha) that Syrian minister of communications Amr Salem had ordered be shut down filed a lawsuit against the minister. The site had been subjected to serious harassment before it was finally banned, including having its office burned, its computers hacked, and its server terminated by the company hosting the site on 2006. Hearings were held in November and December at the Administrative Judiciary Court in Damascus with more scheduled for February 2008.

· Overseas online initiatives: In Iran, for example, despite the authorities’ attempts to restrict internet usage, websites continue to express opinions that the country’s print media would never carry. The internet provides a forum for political debate, with both conservatives and reform advocates using it to promote their political agendas. The internet has also provided a key platform for international initiatives—such as Article 19’s Persianimpediment.org, Freedom House’s Gozaar, and Rooz Online—to promote freedom of expression and inform the Iranian public on human rights issues.

· Top leaders’ ability to influence: Given the authoritarian political systems in these countries, it is important not to underestimate the power of top leaders to push press freedom in a positive direction when pressured. In 2007, there were several examples of leaders intervening to change the fate of certain pieces of legislation or of imprisoned journalists, illustrating the potential for diplomacy to nonetheless yield some results.

o In Jordan, the lower house of parliament approved the Press and Publications Law that removed provisions allowing for imprisonment. This was after the legislation had been approved by the upper house, known to be loyal to King Abdullah. With the King’s implicit blessing, the lower house approved the bill.

o In Iraq, Kurdish president Barzani opposed a new restrictive bill proposed by the Kurdish parliament that would have fined journalists for vague offenses.

o In Syria, academic and cyber-dissident Ali Sayed al-Shihabi was released in January 2007 after five months in detention for articles posted on a far-left website. He was freed under a presidential amnesty marking the Muslim Eid celebrations.

Israel: A Positive Anomaly in the Region, but with Some Areas of Concern

As the only country in the region rated as Free, press freedom is generally respected in Israel. The country features a vibrant and diverse media landscape, which for the most part is adequately protected by an independent judiciary and active civil society. It is also one of the most IT savvy countries in the world, with over 55 percent of the population having unrestricted internet access. Nevertheless, the country also has several longstanding trends concerning restrictions on the press, as well as some new issues that arose in 2007.

Discrimination against and harassment of Arab journalists remains an issue. Israeli press freedom organizations have often accused the Government Press Office of unnecessarily restricting credentials to Palestinians on security grounds. In recent years, the authorities have also been known to detain Arab journalists, especially those reporting for media outlets perceived as hostile to Israel. In July 2007, Israel detained Ata Farahat, a correspondent for Syrian Public Television and “Al-Watan” daily newspaper who was living in the Golan Heights. According to Reporters Without Borders, as of the end of October, Farahat was still being held without trial and a judge had issued an order prohibiting his lawyers or the Israeli press from talking about the case.

Attempts to restrict the movement of journalists outside Israel also became in issue in 2007. Three Israeli journalists are currently facing potential prosecution and up to four years in prison for having reported from Syria and Lebanon. Lisa Goldman, Ron Ben-Yishai, and Tzur Shizaf, who had each traveled separately on a foreign passport, were interrogated by the International and Serious Crimes Unit in November for allegedly violating an Israeli law that forbids its citizens from traveling to “enemy states” without permission from the interior ministry. In addition to the questionable legitimacy of the legislation, the attempt to enforce it in these cases appears suspiciously selective as thousands of Israelis, including several dozen journalists, have traveled to “enemy states” in recent years but have not been pursued by the authorities.

To conclude, Freedom House would like to offer three recommendations for expanding press freedom in the Middle East:

First, through congressional and diplomatic actions, call for the release of journalists who are imprisoned for their legitimate right to free expression – and stand in solidarity with them. Freedom House has in fact formed an International Solidarity Committee which pairs prominent individuals with local reform advocates and journalists. Congressmen Frank Wolf and Gregory Meeks as well as European parliamentarians and others are already active members of this committee. We invite all on this panel to join us as well.

Second, ensure that the US Government continues to fund local and international civil society organizations which are fighting for free expression, advocating for legal reforms, and defending the right of journalists to report the truth.

And third, support overseas broadcasts, web and print media which provide the space for the open exchange of news and views – in Iran and the Arab world. And likewise take the opportunity to engage with Arab satellite stations by appearing as guests and sharing your own views.