Image by neweurasia's Schwartz (CC-usage).

Editor’s note: This post is for our Tajik readers. The original post here.

Дар баҳси байни додрасон ва журналистон ҳарду тараф бо интихоби вазнин рӯбарӯст

Рӯзи сешанбеи 2-юми феврал нишасти додгоҳии се додрас бар зидди се рӯзномаи мустақил дар Тоҷикистон баргузор шуд. Ин мулоқоти аввал нишон дод, ки байни ду тараф ҷанги ҷиддие дар пеш хоҳад буд, зеро бурду бохт ва интихоби бузурге дар миёна аст. Давлат бояд байни қудрат ва адолат, нашрияҳо байни амният ва рисолат якеро баигузинанд.

Дар майдони муштзанӣ

Даъвогарон — додрасҳои Додгоҳи олӣ Нур Нуров ва Улуғбек Мамадшоев, инчунин додраси Додгоҳи шаҳри Душанбе Фахриддин Додометов бо роҳи мусолиҳатомез ҳал кардани масъаларо, ки аз тарафи ҳамкорашон додраси Додгоҳи ноҳияи Синои шаҳри Душанбе Амриддин Сафоев пешниҳод шуда буд, қатъиян рад карданд.

Аз ин рӯ Сафоев 23-юми февралро оғози расмии муҳокимаи парванда қарор дод. То он вақт ҳарду тараф бояд барои изҳори мавқеи ниҳоии худ санадҳои хешро омода ва пешниҳод кунанд.

Гуфтугӯҳо паси дарҳои баста баргузор шуд. Сардабирони нашрияҳо Хуршед Ниёзов (Фараҷ), Зафар Сӯфиев (Озодагон) ва Марат Мамадшоев (Азия Плюс) эҳсос мекарданд, ки гӯё  дар қарамрави бегона ҳастанд. Бо ин ҳама онҳо хушбин буданд, чун ҳавлии додгоҳ пур аз рӯзноманигорон, фаъолони ҳуқуқи башар ва пуштибонони озодии баён буд. Ҳатто бархе аз нозирони байналмиллалӣ, ки ба муносибати интихоботи парлумонӣ ба кишвар омадаанд, низ ҳузур доштанд.

Дар ҳоле ки Мамадшоев аз ҳимояти ҳамкасбонаш сипосгузорӣ мекард, Ниёзов вазъиятро ба румонҳои Кафка дар фазои баста ташбеҳ медод. Дар ин рӯз чанд баёнияи ҳимоятии бисёре аз созмонҳои тоҷикӣ ва байнулмиллалӣ мунташир шуда буданд. Дар ин миён Созмони Гузоришгарони Бидуни Марз рӯзи душанбе изҳороте нашр карда гуфтааст:

Мақомоти Тоҷикистон бояд истифодаи низоми додгоҳиро барои озору ранҷи расонаҳои озоди хабарӣ боздоранд. Нуктаи қонун зидди тӯҳмат бояд дигаргун шавад ва ҳаҷми ҷуброни зарари маънавӣ бояд бо имкониятҳои расонаҳо мутаносиб бошад.

Ба ғайр аз номукаммалии қонунгузорӣ як гароиши наве падид омадааст, ки афзоиши даъвоҳои додгоҳӣ ба зидди рӯзномаҳои асосии мустақили кишвар аст, ки дар чанд рӯзи гузашта зуҳур кардааст. Дар сурате ки то интихоботи парлумонии 28 феврал ҳамагӣ ҳафтаҳо мондааст, талоши тарс додани матбуот ошкоро ба мушоҳида мерасад.

Изҳороти Созмони Гузоришгарони Бидуни Марз дар асоси хабарҳои ба додгоҳ кашида шудани нашрияҳои мустақил ба миён омад. Чунончи, додгоҳ нашрияи “Пайкон”-ро ба пардохти қариб 69 ҳазор маҳкум кард. Ин ҳукм камаршикан аст ва мумкин аст нашрия баста шавад.

Мо бо ин ҳол ба куҷо меравем?

Бисёре аз ҳозирон аз даъвои калони зарари маънавӣ дар баробари расонаҳо дар ҳайрат буданд.Чандин касон пурсиданд, ки ин маблағҳои калон чӣ гуна ҳисобу китоб шудаанд.

Ба таври ҳайратангез, яке аз даъвогарон ишора кард, ки додрасҳо дар пайи даромад аз ҷаримаи нашрияҳо нестанд, балки мақсад доранд пулро ба барномаи бунёди нерӯгоҳи Роғун бахшанд.

Баъзе аз рӯзномангорон ин баёнияро кӯшише барои ба тарафи худ кашидани президент Раҳмон номиданд, ки маъракаи ҷамъоварии маблағ барои Роғунро сар кардааст ва Солеҳҷон Ҷураев, ӯ низ яке аз муттаҳамон мебошад (номаи ӯ буд, ки даъворо барангехт) гуфт, ки  тасмими ба додгоҳ кашидани расонаҳо “дар боло” гирифта шудааст.

Ман фикр мекунам, онҳое ки “дар боло” ҳастанд, мумкин аст дар курсиҳои ларзон менишинанд. Онҳо бояд дарк кунанд, ки бо интихоби мушкиле миёни ҳифзи обрӯи кишвари худ, ки бо матбуоти мустақилаш мефахрад ва эътибори низоми додгоҳии худанд, ки бо иттиҳоми фасод рӯбарӯ шудааст. Интихоби рӯзноманигорон низ сабук нест: ё нармтар кардани лаҳн ва ҷорӣ намудани худсонсурӣ то 23-юми феврал ва он ҳам дар ҳоле ки феврал бо сабаби интихоботи парлумонӣ моҳи доғе хоҳад буд, ё идомаи мубориза барои ҳифзи ҳастӣ ва хонандагони худ.

He spoke of Kazakhstan’s objectives for its year holding the chairmanship: security in Afghanistan (particularly important as Kazakhstan has just signed a transit deal with NATO over an alternative route to Afghanistan and emphasized the key role of Central Asia to security in Kazakhstan, as well as the goal of Kazakhstan to become closer to Europe (RUS):

He also emphasized that Kazakhstan, being the only country to recently give up its nuclear program peacefully, would be a perfect partner to approach Iran on its nuclear policies, and not in the least because Kazakhstan, as a landlocked country, was eager to get a safe passage through to the Persian Gulf for trade purposes, and access to Indian markets through Afghanistan (RUS):

He also spoke about his goals of arranging an OSCE summit, the likes of which hasn’t been done for at least 13 years due to the security implications of having over 20 world leaders together in one place. He’ll be pushing this in 2010.

One thing he diplomatically avoided was discussing Kazakhstan’s human rights record when asked what Kazakhstan’s government was doing to improve its Freedom House human rights and press freedoms ratings, saying that if the OSCE thought Kazakhstan was important enough to allow it to head the OSCE in 2010, that said much about the country’s human rights record and that the country would strive to improve irregardless of international organization approval, but due to the wish of the people of Kazakhstan (RUS, and sorry about the bad video quality

He was introduced by former Senator Chuck Hagel, who, as a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, visited many countries in Central Asia, including Kazakhstan and was a key critic of the war in Iraq.

Videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TQoOukDiNk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHMOKWjpjJc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx2FMSZH5UA

The project is in coordination with Poland’s Institute of National Remembrance (IPN), and although the focus is on the relationship between the Warsaw Pact and Polish intelligence services, it’s to be undoubtedly of curiosity for anyone interested in the history of the wider post-Soviet region.  There’s all sorts of really intriguing and enlightening material on the website, all revealing the Soviets’ perspective on a number of issues.  For example…

• The origins of the Cold War
• The 1945-6 Iranian crisis
• The 1956 Hungarian Revolution
• The Cuban Missile Crisis
• The East German Uprising
• Sino-Soviet relations and their split
• The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan*

Hopefully they’ll get some more specifically Central Asian material in there soon.  (*Also check out their new paper, “The Blind Leading the Blind: Soviet Advisors, Counter-Insurgency, and Naiton-Building in Afghanistan”.)

Photograph of a statue of Justice by Flickr user RaeA (CC-usage).

Editor’s note: In an exclusive interview with neweurasia, Tajikistan’s Supreme Court Judge Nor Nurov for the first time speaks with the media about the lawsuit against three independent Tajik newspapers.  Conducted via phone with our blogger Alpharabius on February 4, 2010 at 18:15 GMT.

Alpharabius: Mr. Nurov, could you tell us what is the cause of your lawsuit against the newspapers?

Nurov: The cause is that all these newspapers are criticizing me and other judges in a very biased manner. Baseless accusations have been directed against us, but nothing, not a single word has been raised against the people who wrote these articles against us. There haven’t even been any doubts if they are telling the truth. All the papers of Tajikistan, all the journalists are against us, am I right?

A: Perhaps, but then why do you think this is happening?

N: I do not know why it is happening. Maybe someone is interested in this situation. I really do not know why it is happening. No one wants to know the details of the cases and the trials, no one asks the question if the judges are guilty or not. I shouldn’t even trust you as I’m answering your questions, because I am not sure if you believe me. It is a very complicated situation that could not be explained by phone.

A: Let’s try. The lawyer Solijona Juraev is accusing you of making illegal court decisions. He wrote that you sentenced several suspects not according to the law, but under pressure from the head of the Supreme Court.  How can you deny that?

Mr. Nurov protests again that he believes a phonecall is not a suitable medium, but then continues:

N: In this case I should say that the appeal court supported my verdict. If it was against the law then the appeal court might have changed it. No one has the right to say that it was unlawful.

A: However, Juraev published the transcription of his conversation he had with you on the phone, according to which you agreed that the court decision was illegal.

N: I do not want to comment on that now, I will comment on it in the court only. Right now I reiterate that all everything was fully according to the law and that the appeal court confirmed my verdict. That is it.

A: Excuse me if this is a hard question, but the people want to know how you have been “morally damaged”? What is the reason for your disagreement with the newspapers?

N: Look, our disagreement will be solved at the court. The court will solve everything.

A: All right. One more question: how did you calculate the amount of the moral damage?

N: I calculated it myself. It is a moral damage done by them [i.e., the defendants]. Of course, it is the court’s decision to keep this amount as I have requested it, or to change it. The court has the right to annul it, halve it, or to ask the defendants to pay the whole sum. I [also] asked to send this amount to the Roghun power plant fund. The court will make a decision.

A: Who do you think is more responsible for this damage, Juarev or the newspapers who published his letter?

Mr. Nurov states that he cannot hear the question due to technical difficulties with the phone.

A: The newspapers say that they just published Juarev’s letter and are ready to publish your answer.  Why haven’t you given them your answer?

N: Are you familiar with the Media Law of the Republic of Tajikistan? According to Article 29, Part 3, newspapers and the mass media have no right to discuss or analyze court sentences before they become effective. We warned them against publishing anything about decisions that were not yet binding. However, they have gone ahead and published [on this topic].

A: Excuse me, but you told me that the appeal court confirmed your verdict.  That means it became effective.  But the lawyer says he was not able to prevent it.  He believes the verdict is illegal; so did the state prosecutor. Is there a contradiction?

Mr. Nurov again states that he cannot hear the question.  He then reiterates his feeling that a phonecall is not an appropriate medium and insists he has to hang up.

A: Please, this is the last question.  I know it is late in Dushanbe, sorry about that. It is really the last question. Was it in accordance with the law that you asked the court to suspend all three newspapers until the end of what seems will be a long trial?

N: Yes, it is according to the law to suspend the newspapers’ temporarily.

A: Many experts believe that your lawsuit is related to upcoming parliamentary elections.

N: That is nonsense! How could the election be related to the trial? How could the election be related to crimes that we investigated and about which the newspapers accused us?

A: Some people call your lawsuit and the demand to close down the newspapers politically motivated actions. What do you say?

N: Look, one person attacked another person publicly via the mass media. Why should [the lawsuit] be considered as a political act?

A: Understood. Also, one of the Tajik observers wrote on Wednesday that the whole dispute is related to the power struggle or competition between the Supreme Court and the General Prosecutor’s Office. According to him the letter against your verdict was published in order to keep Mr. Bobojon Bobokhonov in the position of the General Prosecutor.

N: No. That is not right. Look, the case that I tried at the court was clear: someone killed the former Deputy General Prosecutor, his friend robbed the state budget, his relative occupied another’s property, and so on. How we can explain it as a struggle between two state entities? On the basis of what evidence could we say that? We have all the evidence to deny that. If the newspapers are ready to publish what we gathered through the investigation on that case we are ready to offer our own letter. There will be no evaluations, just facts, and we will allow the readers to make conclusion by themselves.

A: The newspapers say they are ready to do so.

N: We are ready, too. We will offer them all these facts soon. That is for sure!

A: Thank you for the interview. Would you like to make a final remark?

N: Yes. I want to say to everyone that I will submit all the details of the concerned criminal case to the readers through the Tajik press without any of my evaluation or estimations. Let them read and make their own conclusions themselves. That is it.

Image by neweurasia's Schwartz (CC-usage).

Are the Roghun project and the lawsuit against three independent newspapers connected? Alpharabius, neweurasia’s blogger covering the lawsuit, believes that the trial is at minimum peripherally connected to the dam controversy, not to mention the upcoming parliamentary elections. His sentiment is apparently echoed by much of the Tajik journalistic and human rights community.

I don’t know if that’s strong enough grounds to claim a conspiracy is afoot. However, the watchdog group Reporters Without Borders (RSF) certainly believes that there is a concerted shadow campaign against all independent media in Tajikistan:

Aside from the flawed legislation, a new tendency is emerging in the lawsuits that have been brought against the country’s leading independent newspapers in the past few days. With just weeks to go to parliamentary elections [...] there is clearly an all-out drive to intimidate news media and get them to censor their coverage of state authorities.

Hmmmm well, interesting, not only print media is having problems. For example, according to Irada Guisenova, an analyst with the Moscow-based Center for Journalism in Extreme Situations, the independent news channels CMT and ORT recently discovered they are broadcasting on the same wavelength, interfering with each other.

Tolib Halls, the Chief Inspector of the Committee on Television, is investigating the “legality” of the situation to determine if either of the channels have violated any laws. In the meantime, both channels have temporarily ceased broadcasting. In light of the upcoming parliamentary elections, it does seem a bit too convenient, doesn’t it?

All told, you wouldn’t be crazy to think that at least some elements of the government are trying to clamp down independent media, using defamation laws and other technicalities to lend their efforts plausible deniability.  The big question is to what extent is the president involved — and whose side is he on?

President Emamolii Rahmon may be sanctioning the conspiracy behind closed doors, or, conversely, he is actually powerless to stop it.  He has frequently complained publicly about corruption in the government, and recently issued a decree that all public officials must respond to accusations raised by journalists.

Yet, he has also so far failed to intervene on behalf of the press.  The President thus appears oddly transcendent and remote.   There’s no denying, as Alpharabius notes, that at stake is Tajikistan’s prestige, and Rahmon must certainly be aware of that.   If for no other reason than that one, there’s only so long he can remain silent and unsullied in the clouds…