Summary

OSI Forum: Press Freedom in Afghanistan

Building Afghan Media Requires Patience, Say Activists

The following is a summary of an OSI Forum, "Press Freedom in Afghanistan," that was held on November 24, 2003. The summary is reprinted courtesy of EurasiaNet, the news and information website of OSI's Central Eurasia Project.

December 2, 2003

More than two years after the Taliban’s ouster, two leaders of Afghanistan’s budding independent press say subtle but potent barriers to free speech remain in place in the country.

Speaking at an Open Forum hosted by the Open Society Institute on November 24, Abdul Salmay Hamed, a journalist, along with commentator and poet A.H. Wareed Warasta, said most Afghans are unaccustomed to expressing their ideas in public, and thus are taking a cautious approach towards efforts to foster free speech.

The two experts described Afghanistan’s free media development as plagued by self-censorship and a lack of journalistic standards. Hamed, who has won a Committee to Protect Journalists award for standing up to censors, said many Afghan journalists were timid and unsure of what the role of a free press should be in a democracy.

Hamed described the "triangle of power," in which royalists, warlords, and those loyal to President Hamid Karzai operate. Within this so-called triangle, limited free speech was possible. Beyond the triangle, a code of silence was largely enforced. "Those inside can criticize each other," he said, "but a journalist coming from the outside would quickly learn" that such conversations and internal debates rarely reach the public.

To promote more incisive reporting, Hamed founded the Association for the Defense of Afghan Writers’ Rights in 2002. Another organization working to foster free speech is the Open Media Fund for Afghanistan, founded with help from Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid, and supported with funds from foundations and American movie star/producer Michael Douglas.

A key task for free-media advocates is overcoming self-censorship among reporters and scholars. Ultimately, Hamed, Warasta and others want Afghan media to be more thorough in examining the conduct of government, and of prominent public figures.

Under existing circumstances, public criticism of authorities can be dangerous in Afghanistan, as it is in other Central Asian countries. Hamed told the audience that the "ex-minister of the interior attacked me in front of other ministers" and that two men had menaced him with knives in Kabul in April. Various factions were accused of orchestrating the assault, which came after Hamed published an article criticizing warlords’ role in the country.

Reporting on the episode, Hamed added, reflected the stifled nature of the news business in Afghanistan. Loyalists of different Afghan factions blamed supporters of rival groups, often making fantastic claims. For instance, he said, some alleged that supporters of President Hamid Karzai had ordered the attack, reasoning that the assailants wore "winter clothes" and so must have been more accustomed to the southern climate of Karzai’s native Kandahar.

So far, the fledgling free-speech associations have scored several minor successes. For instance, Hamed and Warasta reported that negotiations with authorities had preserved reporters’ ability to expose the flaws in the government’s effort to improve social conditions. Beyond such small victories, though, the advocates say they must wage a major struggle to educate the population about the meaning of democracy.

"We have to present the news to people," said Hamed. "Democracy has preconditions, including literacy and public debate."