Violetta Vutsans, Junior Librarian
Open Society Archives / Library, Budapest, Hungary

"Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression;
this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers,
either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art,
or through any other media of his choice."

Article 19 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Freedom of expression, mass media and information is an indispensable element of the legal democratic society, a guarantee of its stability and progress.

• Firstly, it is universally recognized that in an open, pluralistic and democratic society, media serve as a "fourth estate," which scrutinizes legislative, judicial, and executive branches of power. Free media can broadly distribute adequate information about the president, government, parliament, and courts, to provide information and to disclose wrong-doing to the public.
• Secondly, media also serve as a catalyst, which speeds up transformation of the whole society into pluralistic and democratic one.
• Thirdly, free media and plurality truly indicate to what extent national government follows democratic principles.

Obstruction of independent media reveals closed nature and anti-democratic character of the regime.

Since a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and a member of United Nation, Republic of Belarus declared its intention to follow fundamental principles of human, political rights and freedoms, including freedom of media. Its constitution clearly states that "everyone is guaranteed the right to freedom of thought and speech, to free expression of one’ s own views and ideas, the right to seek, store, use and disseminate information, either orally, in writing, or through any other medium of one’s choice."

During his election campaign Alexander Lukashenko, now present President of the Republic of Belarus, was promising to liberalize and democratize Belarusian mass media. However, very soon the Department of Public and Political Information started to scan every newspaper, book, TV and radio programs, and theatre performances in search of the slightest sign of sedition.

The next step in the so-called "liberalization" process was The Law On the Press and Other Forms of Mass Media with its amendments. On the one hand, it reflects basic aims of a press law common throughout the world. Such as:

• to define rules regulating press, publishing industry, and electronic media;
• to reinforce inadmissibility of censorship and to include basic provisions on freedom of information, activity to seek, obtain, produce, and disseminate information;
• to determine rights and responsibilities of journalists.

At the same time, several serious and consequential restrictions were put by. For instance,

• measures against defamation and insult of "harming reputation of citizens, officials,"
• prohibitions of publishing "information damaging the honor and dignity of government officials whose status has been established by the Constitution";
• restrictions concerned with the national security, etc.

All reasons given were of a purely "humanistic" nature or to "pursue the national interests."

Claiming that freedom of expression should be limited in order to protect someone’s rights or bring public safety is one of the typical reasons to bring about censorship up in countries with a totalitarian regime.

Lukashenko has continued to consolidate his authoritarian power, ruling the country by presidential decree, building a system of institutional support for his rule. Thus, entitles entrusted with media regulation are also controlled by the Presidential Administration. They already used to close some of the newspapers, broadcasting stations, printing facilities, etc. All state media, for instance, the Belarusian TV company, broadcasting over the whole territory of the Republic, operate under direct government control. They distribute only such news that is deemed to be positive from the government’s point of view and often serve as a tool to defame oppositions. The government is very suspicious to existing and creating of domestic broadcasters in Belarus. It tries to prevent this phenomenon as a platform for alternative information or opinions by using wide rage of financial and administrative sanctions and restrictions. A few existing non-state TV stations covering small local areas have to focus on "safer" local issues only.

Russian TV channels, as a source of alternative information on national news, have openly criticized and expressed their own point of view on the policies of the Belarusian government as well as President. In response Belarusian authority has restricted and prevented the activities of the Russian broadcasting media and its officials. For example, Russian TV reporters, who need to use technical facilities of the Belarusian TV to send video materials to Moscow, were hindered several times to do this because these materials, i.e., those about anti-governmental rally, were deemed controversial.

The more control state puts over information, the shorter range of information people can have access to. They are presented mostly with news and opinions reflecting specific interests only. Censorship strives to block any signs of criticism or critical thinking.

Belarusian government has been quite creative in its attempts to hinder young media. Due to the range of restrictions from the part of authorities in regard to the non-state media and domination of state one, the situation with circulation figures non-state media is quiet unfavorable. State-owned printing houses could print non-state papers only after appropriate permission issued by the Presidential Administration only. The next move by the Presidential Administration was to ban subscription and distribution through the news-stand network "Belsoiuzpechat." Once again newspapers were forced to create alternative distribution. Then the notorious Decree No.218 came up to restrict import and export of print, audio, and video materials.

Belarusian government aware that economic pressure is more effective than administrative or criminal pressure. It is evidential, that non- state mass media are closely connected with or even subordinate to financial independence. Non-governmental media generally do not receive any subsidies from the government, yet are depended on donators from their founders or sponsors. Permanent financial audition and sanctions, repeated tax inspections with no advance notice, together with money deficit make difficult to function and sometimes to exist non- state media. There were, in August 1996 nine leading independent or opposition papers were targeted for alleged tax infractions. Five were ordered to pay fines of thousands of dollars, which in some cases exceeded the combined annual wage for the staff. Moreover, for the non-state media which well-being depends on placing advertisements as well as sale income, the prohibition in advertising could disadvantage them and deteriorate already precarious financial situation. Indeed, the wording of that provision in the official circular indicates that this is its very purpose. The general pattern of such inspections and the way they are carried out, demonstrates that such measures are aimed at undermining the financial viability of this sector of the media.

Since 1996 official warnings addressed to non-state media have become more and more frequent. They are accused of inflaming social intolerance, divulging state secrets, and even making appeals to overthrow the constitutional system. This allowed the authority to overrule even the existence of some of Belarusian newspapers.

A well-known case of the Belarusian weekly "Svaboda" is quite typical. At the end of November 1997, the Supreme Economic Court of the Republic of Belarus ordered closure of this largest opposition newspaper. Authorities, to observe legal requirements, first issued formal warnings about four various articles. For the Public Prosecution Office and the State Press Committee that was enough to open a case. The judge, who leads the case, declined objections about validity of the warnings and the defendant’s request to arrange inspection by independent experts.

Authority is determined to eliminate all independent institutions that could obstruct his remorseless attempt to monopolize power.

Since January 1995, when the first version of The Law On the Press and Other Mass Media was adopted, different kinds of restrictive amendments have been introduced since then. Almost all of them contain a range of various bans and actions against journalists and independent media. It is evidently, that these changes provoked a new wave of discontent from the part of the media. Thus, in 1997, during mass actions of protest against A. Lukashenko’s politics, the police purposely and unmercifully beat dozens of journalists present at these events. A journalist’s identification card failed to insure protection from police clubs, kicks and tear-gas. Journalists were arrested for expressing their views and reporting events that cast unfavorable light on the government, and violation of public order. Practically all of them fell under the heading of crimes, administrative breaches or civic-legal delicts: Some of them were brought to administrative justice according to The Administrative Code and The Decree of the President on gatherings, meetings, street rallies, demonstrations and picketing in the Republic of Belarus, others were detained and imprisoned as criminals.

The law gives an institution that controls the mass media, the right, without the sentence of decision of a court, to access any acts as a basis for the issuing of a warning and for the future closing of operations of an institution of the mass media.

One of the component of governmental control and self-censorship is a mandatory licensing or registration of journalists. This especially concerns foreign journalists.

A conflict between the authority and two Russian TV channels gave cause for the beginning of a governmental campaign to control the activities of foreign media.

Discontent of government regard with two journalists, P. Sheremet and A. Stupnikov, who work for Russian State Television (ORT) and Russian Television Company (NTV) caused by their "biased coverage of the social and political situation in Belarus." Measures, undertook by the authority, were more than drastic. A. Stupnikov was expelled from the republic and P. Sheremet spent more than two months in prison. Both of them were stripped of the accreditation.

In June 1997 the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus approved a normative act on the foreign media bureaus and correspondents in the Republic of Belarus. According to this law all non-Belarusian media could be founded only with the agreement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Belarus and set up with the permission of the Cabinet of Ministers. According to law the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has a right to reduce the term of correspondents’ residence in the republic and to subject them to deportation The act enlarges a list of bans for foreign correspondents and therefore of bases for applying sanctions to them. Correspondents will bear "full responsibility" in case the media are used for the purpose of non-fulfilling the republic’ s international commitments, instigating to disobey the legal orders of state organs, founds, illegal non-governmental association, supporting and promoting their activities, and other illegal forms of activities.

In order to avoid unpleasant publications of articles, containing a criticism of leadership and above all the President and provoking "the inflammation of social intolerance authority is very careful and cautious to provide journalists with information. In March 1998 the authority puts a ban on providing non-state media with official information. It was defined by an internal circular headed "on strengthening counter-measures against articles in the opposition press", marked "for official use" and signed by a Senior adviser in the Department of Social and Cultural Policy under the Council of Ministers. This document states that the government considers it necessary to take measures as follows:

• to prohibit ministers and other state bodies from passing any official documents (decisions, resolutions, orders, etc.) to non-state media;
• to inform state officials that they are not permitted to make comments to the opposition media on official documents;
• to prohibit state institutions and enterprises from placing advertisements in the opposition press.

It is remarkable that authority did not take any steps to publicize these new measures or inform media. When news of this circular became known, state officials commented this document as insignificant and unimportant. Due to these measures, the Presidential Administration tries to control and constraint the supply of information to journalists or researches. The authority invokes a wide variety of reasons for censoring speech and publication, for justifying secrecy, and for taking action against individuals as well as the non-state media because of their opinions. This prohibition effectively denies non-state media access to a wide range of information necessary to them to carry out the function of informing the public.

Despite all this and other evidence to the contrary, the Belarusian authorities have denied the violation of media freedom, and have made public statements professing their commitment to freedom of expression and freedom of the media. At the 54^th Session of the Commission on Human Rights on April 1998 the Delegation of the Republic of Belarus stated: "The Government of the Belarus fully shares the thesis… that mass media freedom is an essential component of freedom of expression and information… We fully recognize the crucial role of freedom of expression in giving substance to democratic development and respect for human rights. The Government of the Republic of Belarus will further take all necessary measures in order to bring Belarusian legislation and law enforcement practice in the field of freedom of opinion and expression into conformity with international standards."

Unfortunately, the truth is that position of Mass Media in Belarus is a typical case of interrelations between Censorship, Different Kinds of Bans, Restrictions in the person of Authoritarian Power and Freedom, Democracy or Pluralistic Ideas. It does not suffice to declare and state fundamental principles of human rights constitutionally. It needs to follow them. Freedom, in our case freedom of expression and mass media, depends on the willingness of the authorities to allow it; on an independent judiciary to safeguard it; on the economic conditions for achieving it; on the interest of the public in independent and credible media; and on the commitment and professionalism of journalists’ themselves. If these conditions combine, the media will be the watchdog and catalyst of democracy.

All information is based on archival materials of the Open Society Archives, Budapest-Hungary. Besides that the following sources were used:

BELY, Alexander, Freedom of Oppression, in: Index on Censorship, 1/1996, pp.128 -131.

FISH, Stanley, There’s No Such Thing as Free Speech and it’s a Good Thing, too, New York, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1994.

Human rights developments in 1997 - Annual report 1998, publication of International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights (IHF), Vienna, 1998.

Information Freedom and Censorship - World Report 1991, publication of ‘Article 19 - International Centre on Censorship, Library Association Publishing Ltd., London, 1991.

LANGE, Yasha, Media in the CIS - A study of the political, legislative and socio-economic framework, The European Institute for Media, Dusseldorf, 1997.

LICHTENBERG, Judith (ed.), Democracy and the mass media - A collection of essays, Cambridge, New York, Port Chester, Melbourne, Sydney, Cambridge University Press, 1991

LITVINA, Zhanna, No prospects, in: Index on Censorship, 1/1996, pp.132-133.

Belarus - The Noose Tightens - Increasing controls on the press, publication of ‘Article 19 - International Centre Against Censorship, Article 19, London, 1998.

The Law on the Press and Other Forms of Mass Media on January 13, 1995, No.3513-XII [Belarus].