Chechnya: Immediately release human rights defender Oyub Titiev

Oyub Titiev

Oyub Titiev

We, members of the Civic Solidarity Platform (CSP), are deeply concerned at reports of the arrest of Oyub Titiev, head of Human Rights Center Memorial’s Grozny office in Chechnya on highly dubious narcotics charges. We call for his immediate and unconditional release and dropping of all charges.

Titiev is highly respected in the international human rights community, as well as in the North Caucasus, where he is part of a small group of brave human rights defenders still working to uncover and document grave ongoing human rights violations. Titiev has led Memorial’s work in Chechnya since the horrific murder of his colleague Natalia Estemirova in 2009. In recent years, he received numerous threats aimed at making him quit human rights work. Now, his life and safety are in jeopardy.

According to reports, Oyub Titiev was brought to the Kurchaloi district police department shortly after his car was stopped and searched near the Khymuk bridge around 10:30 am on Tuesday 9 January. Titiev’s lawyer has been informed that he is being charged with the illegal possession of drugs, reportedly a large amount (180 grams) of marijuana.

Similar trumped-up charges have previously led to several years’ imprisonment for activists and independent journalists in Chechnya. Framing people for drug crimes has become an increasingly frequent tactic used by Chechnya’s authorities to punish and discredit their critics in the eyes of Chechen society.

The Civic Solidarity Platform is a network of more than 90 human rights organizations working across the OSCE region. We consider the suggestion that a highly experienced human rights defender such as 60 year-old Oyub Titiev would travel around Chechnya with any amount of drugs in his car to be absurd, and to be evidence only of the tactics employed by Chechen authorities against principled and hard-working human rights defenders. We believe Chechen authorities are seeking to frame Titiev and close down the extremely important work of Human Rights Center Memorial in the region by means of threats and harassment.

Russia is under an obligation to respect and enable the work of human rights defenders. An important resolution in the UN General Assembly – adopted by consensus on 24 December 2017 – “Calls upon States to take concrete steps to prevent and put an end to arbitrary arrest and detention, including of human rights defenders, and in this regard strongly urges the release of persons detained or imprisoned, in violation of the obligations and commitments of States under international human rights law, for exercising their human rights and fundamental freedoms, such as the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association, including in relation to cooperation with the United Nations or other international mechanisms in the area of human rights”.

The undersigned members of the Civic Solidarity Platform call on Chechen authorities as well as central Russian authorities to immediately release Oyub Titiev and stop his persecution as we believe that he is being punished solely in retaliation for his legitimate and peaceful human rights work. Furthermore, we call on authorities to ensure the safety of Memorial staff in Chechnya. Furthermore, we call on authorities not to hinder but to assist brave individuals such as Titiev in their work to uncover grave human rights violations in the North Caucasus region.

We call on international organizations and foreign governments to follow Titiev’s case closely and to bring our concerns to the attention of the authorities in the Russian Federation. Russia must abide by its international human rights obligations and OSCE commitments.

Signed:

  1. Advisory Centre on contemporary international practices and their implementation in law ”Human Constanta” (Belarus)
  2. Albanian Helsinki Committee (Albania)
  3. Article 19 (United Kingdom)
  4. Association UMPDL (Ukraine)
  5. Barys Zvozskau Belarusian Human Rights House (Lithuania)
  6. Belarusian Helsinki Committee (Belarus)
  7. Bir Duino (Kyrgyzstan)
  8. Bulgarian Helsinki Committee (Bulgaria)
  9. Center for Civil Liberties (Ukraine)
  10. Center for Participation and Development (Georgia)
  11. Center for the Development of Democracy and Human Rights (Russia)
  12. Centre de la Protection Internationale (France)
  13. Citizens’ Watch (Russia)
  14. Committee Against Torture (Russia)
  15. Crude Accountability (USA)
  16. Freedom Files (Poland/Russia)
  17. Georgian Centre for Psychosocial and Medical Rehabilitation of Torture Victims-GCRT (Georgia)
  18. German-Russian Exchange (Germany)
  19. Helsinki Association Armenia (Armenia)
  20. Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly-Vanadzor (Armenia)
  21. Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia (Serbia)
  22. Helsinki Committee of Armenia (Armenia)
  23. Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (Poland)
  24. Human Rights Center of Azerbaijan (Azerbaijan)
  25. Human Rights Center “Viasna” (Belarus)
  26. Human Rights Club (Azerbaijan)
  27. Human Rights Matter (Germany)
  28. Human Rights Monitoring Institute (Lithuania)
  29. IDP Women Association Consent (Georgia)
  30. Index on Censorship (United Kingdom)
  31. Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety (Azerbaijan)
  32. International Partnership for Human Rights (Belgium)
  33. International Protection Center (Russia)
  34. Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law (Kazakhstan)
  35. Kharkiv Regional Foundation Public Alternative (Ukraine)
  36. Legal Transformation Center (Belarus)
  37. Macedonian Helsinki Committee (Macedonia)
  38. Moscow Helsinki Group (Russia)
  39. Netherlands Helsinki Committee (Netherlands)
  40. Norwegian Helsinki Committee (Norway)
  41. Notabene (Tajikistan)
  42. OMCT – World Organisation Against Torture (Switzerland)
  43. Office of Civil Freedoms (Tajikistan)
  44. Promo LEX Association (Moldova)
  45. Protection of Rights Without Borders (Armenia)
  46. Public Association Dignity (Kazakhstan)
  47. Public Verdict (Russia)
  48. Regional Center for Strategic Studies (Azerbaijan/Georgia)
  49. Solidarus (Germany)
  50. Truth Hounds (Ukraine)
  51. Women of the Don (Russia)

Emisora en zona de guerra

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Previo a publicación de un nuevo informe sobre las amenazas a los medios de comunicación en el país, Rhodri Davies habla con los sirios que crearon su propia emisora de radio”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_column_text]

Varios locutores de la emisora SouriaLi, reunidos con invitados en Amán (Jordania)

Varios locutores de la emisora SouriaLi, reunidos con invitados en Amán (Jordania), SouriLa

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

«Compramos unos trapos muy gruesos para fabricar una especie de insonorización; así nuestras voces no se oirían desde fuera y el sonido de las bombas no entraría al apartamento», cuenta el periodista Dima Kalayi, describiendo cómo un grupo de personas unió sus fuerzas en un piso diminuto y comenzó a realizar programas para una emisora independiente siria. El piso de Damasco fue el primer lugar en el que pudieron reunir a gran parte del equipo de la nueva emisora.

«Queríamos que SouriaLi fuera un ejemplo de cómo nos gustaría que [fuera] Siria en el futuro», dice Caroline Ayub, una de los cuatro cofundadores de la emisora, que ayudó a montarlo todo desde el exilio. Ayub explica que querían mostrar la identidad diversa de Siria, al mismo tiempo que recordaban también la cultura que todos tienen en común. Por otro lado, les daba la sensación de que se recurría demasiado a los medios internacionales para informarse sobre su propio país.

«Para nosotros, el objetivo principal de la revolución era expresar la propia voz e identidad. Y para ello es esencial hacer que esa voz continúe», añade Ayub, que huyó a Marsella tras haber estado presa durante un mes en 2012 por distribuir huevos de Pascua con citas sacadas de la Biblia, junto a otras del Corán (las autoridades la acusaron de terrorismo).

SouriaLi, que puede traducirse como «Siria es mía», transmite las 24 horas y cuenta con podcasts, contenido visual y una app. Sin embargo, no compite contra los programas de noticias duras a tiempo real. La intención de la emisora es reflejar los problemas que sufre el país por medio de debates y tertulias —interactuando en vivo con el público por WhatsApp y Skype regularmente—, así como radionovelas y cuentacuentos.

Lo suyo es verdadera vocación. El informe del Comité para la Protección de los Periodistas, cuya publicación está prevista para noviembre, hará mención a la creciente gravedad de la situación de los periodistas sirios y espera que el país pase de estar en tercer lugar a ser la segunda nación más peligrosa en su índice global.

SouriaLi se vale de periodistas para recabar información, que luego contrasta con otras fuentes. Al contar con miembros provenientes de una amplia área geográfica dentro del país —aunque la mayoría viven ahora en el exilio—, su red de contactos en Siria es “extensa”, según Iyad Kalas, otro cofundador y director de programación. Explica que siempre examinan la procedencia de las fuentes y el modo en el que se ha obtenido la información para poder establecer su nivel de credibilidad.

Su serie semanal titulada Yadayel (“Trenzas”) cuenta historias de mujeres, como el trato que reciben en puestos de control, la experiencia de vivir en Raqa bajo el control del EI o cómo es trabajar en un hospital.

«Es muy importante para nosotras, porque así estás dándoles voz [a] las mujeres. La mayoría de estas mujeres provienen de una sociedad muy oprimida y conservadora», explica Ayub.

Llegó a haber 11 personas de la emisora en Siria, más las que trabajaban desde fuera. Hoy, sin embargo, solo queda un miembro del equipo en el país: muchos de ellos acabaron en la cárcel antes de marcharse de Siria, algunos por oponerse al gobierno y otros por enviar ayuda. La mayoría de los que no fueron arrestados, como Kalayi, que vive en Berlín desde 2013, abandonaron el país. Ayub describe SouriaLi como «un medio exiliado porque, por el momento, estamos en el exilio».

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/4″][/vc_column][vc_column width=”3/4″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

El equipo ahora suma 27 miembros, voluntarios incluidos, que trabajan desde 14 países distintos de Oriente Medio, Europa y Norteamérica.

La labor de reafirmar la diversidad de Siria supone facilitar el acceso a las ondas a todas las voces del grupo, ya sean kurdas, suníes, chiíes, alauíes, armenias, cristianas o de otro tipo. Kalayi produjo una serie titulada Fatush, en la que tomaba recetas típicas de las diferentes regiones y grupos de Siria y hablaba sobre identidad étnica y problemas a menudo ignorados, mano a mano con la gastronomía.

SouriaLi trata de incluir una variedad de perspectivas, aunque las figuras prorrégimen raras veces aceptan la invitación. Pese a todo, la emisora ofrece la oportunidad de expresarse a todos los puntos de vista. «Creemos firmemente que los medios de comunicación, como una emisora de radio, una plataforma, deberían ser para todos los sirios», afirma Ayub.

Sus emisiones atraen a un público numeroso: tienen más de 450.000 seguidores en Facebook. La emisora solía emitir en FM en 12 zonas de Siria, en las que compañeros locales se encargaban de la transmisión. Sin embargo, el régimen de Assad siempre prohibía la emisión en las regiones que caían bajo su dominio, y diferentes grupos de combate de la oposición, como Yabhat al Nusra (entonces vinculado con Al Qaeda, hoy rebautizado como Yabhat Fateh al Sham), han tratado de controlar el contenido de SouriaLi. Exigían, por ejemplo, que dejasen de emitir ciertos programas y música, como el contenido kurdo, o los obligaban a emitir el Corán. La emisora también recibió amenazas del Estado Islámico.

SouriaLi se negó a recibir órdenes del gobierno o de sus oponentes, y puso fin a su transmisión en FM a mediados de 2016. «Así que decidimos dejarlo», relata Ayub. «Dijimos: “Siria ya no es [solo] Siria de la frontera adentro. Siria es todos los sirios de cualquier lugar.” Tenemos millones de sirios fuera, en Europa. Todos necesitan la esperanza, la información que estamos emitiendo, así que recalibramos nuestro centro atención».

La emisora de radio pasó a ser solo en línea. Su página web está disponible para la población siria, tanto en los lugares donde no hay censura como a través de VPN. También hay una versión pensada para evitar la censura que solo incluye la emisión de radio en directo.

Kalas, que abandonó Siria por Francia en 2012, cuenta que ahora la emisora podría pasar a estar solo en internet, pues «Siria es un país virtual» con oyentes repartidos por todos los puntos del globo. SouriaLi calcula que alrededor del 40% de su audiencia online está ubicada en Siria, otro 40% lo forma su diáspora y otro 18% son oyentes de habla árabe, principalmente de Irak y Egipto.

Mantener la moral alta es uno de los mayores retos a los que se enfrenta el equipo, según Kalas y Ayub. «Antes de 2011 no había realmente “medios” o “periodismo” en Siria», apunta Kalayi. Ahora, se siente optimista. «Tengo libertad para elegir los temas, cómo tratarlos, cómo presentarlos. Y esto es algo muy importante para mí como persona y como periodista». Y cuando las condiciones lo permitan, quiere volver a Siria y seguir haciendo eso mismo.

Ayub añade: «Yo creo que a un país [como] Siria le hacen falta miles y miles de proyectos de comunicación, muchas plataformas para que la gente se exprese, para debatir. Porque, sin debate, sin libertad de expresión, nunca existirá un país libre. Y esto, por supuesto, es aplicable a Siria también».

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Rhodri Davies es periodista independiente. Ha escrito reportajes desde Catar, Egipto, Irak y Yemen.

Este artículo fue publicado en la revista Index on Censorship en otoño de 2017.

Traducción de Arrate Hidalgo.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row content_placement=”top”][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”Free to air” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2F2017%2F12%2Fwhat-price-protest%2F|||”][vc_column_text]Through a range of in-depth reporting, interviews and illustrations, the autumn 2017 issue of Index on Censorship magazine explores how radio has been reborn and is innovating ways to deliver news in war zones, developing countries and online

With: Ismail Einashe, Peter Bazalgette, Wana Udobang[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”95458″ img_size=”medium” alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2017/12/what-price-protest/”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″ css=”.vc_custom_1481888488328{padding-bottom: 50px !important;}”][vc_custom_heading text=”Subscribe” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2Fsubscribe%2F|||”][vc_column_text]In print, online. In your mailbox, on your iPad.

Subscription options from £18 or just £1.49 in the App Store for a digital issue.

Every subscriber helps support Index on Censorship’s projects around the world.

SUBSCRIBE NOW[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Osman Kavala’s arrest: A new low in Turkey’s descent

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Osman Kavala. Credit: Anadolu Kültür

Osman Kavala. Credit: Anadolu Kültür

On 19 October, when police officers detained Osman Kavala, a left-wing Turkish human rights activist and businessman who funds a variety of cultural and civil society activities, I was set to catch a plane en route to Armenia to attend a conference. The news was extremely bothersome as I, having held a civil society job for two years, knew all too well what his detention entailed. As Andrew Finkel, an executive of the Independent Platform for Journalism (P24) commented, his detention and later arrest was “a chilling signal to those working in the civil society community”.

I never knew Kavala personally, but always respected him for allowing civil society organisations to use his centrally-located Cezayir Restaurant for events and gatherings, usually at a minimal charge. I tried not to think about what I understood to be a new low in Turkey’s recent descent into authoritarianism and had managed to completely forget about it by the time I had reached the beautiful mountain resort of Arghevan. Yet my fellow conference attendees were quick to remind me of what had happened at home earlier in the day. Several people greeted me saying they had heard the news; that they were extremely concerned about their friend Osman.  “He has more friends in Armenia than he has in Turkey,” Armen Ohanyan, an Armenian writer, told me.

This, of course, owes to Kavala’s commitment to Turkish-Armenian reconciliation. He has been committed to improving the troubled relations between the two neighbours stemming from a number of factors, but mainly from Turkey’s unwillingness to recognise the Armenian Genocide. However, repairing ties was not the only area where Kavala worked. Anadolu Kültür, a foundation he established, has carried out many cultural projects including restoration of minority heritage. He has also been an active supporter of children’s, women’s and LGBT rights. The foundation was recently involved in a project for integrating Syrian refugees into Turkish society.

Dozens of articles from his friends followed his arrest and from them we learn that, unlike most of Turkey’s elite, this wealthy businessman not only talked about the most problematic affairs of his country but actively put time and effort into resolving them. He remained committed to pursuing that goal until it was too much for the government. Perhaps he was not a saint or some modern-day sage who devoted his life to others, but he was a good man; a “good citizen” as the son-in-law of a general, who was imprisoned in a past crackdown led by prosecutors who were part of the Fethullah Gülen network which today the Turkish government accuses of being behind the 2016 coup attempt, called him.  

Ironically, Kavala was arrested two weeks after his detention by an Istanbul court on the basis of a prosecutor’s allegation that he was linked with the “parallel structure” FETÖ/PDY — or the Fethullahist Terrorist Organisation — the name Turkish authorities give to Gülen network.

The prosecution accuses Kavala of “attempting to overthrow the government” by supporting Turkey’s Gezi Park protests — massive peaceful anti-government demonstrations that took place in all provinces across the country four years ago. His arrest was not a surprise and president Erdogan called Kavala an “agent” and the “Soros of Turkey” in the few hours following his initial detention.

In a statement he made while in prison on 6 November 2017, Kavala said it was Erdogan’s statements that led to his arrest. “My arrest is part of the government’s attack on all opposition,” he told a visiting deputy.

The charges against him are bogus, as Sedat Ergin, the former editor-in-chief of the Hürriyet daily, explained at length in a column which was translated into English. On 9 November, prominent European diplomats and politicians, including Carl Bildt, Claus Offe and others, wrote to the Financial Times, of the ridiculousness of the charges against him.

Whether there will be an unexpected yet helpful twist in the course of his proceedings as was the case of the eight human rights defenders who were released conditionally have yet to be seen. However, his treatment so far clearly shows that darker times are ahead for civil society.

On 8 November the Checks and Balances Network (DDA), an umbrella network for more than 100 civil society organisations, made a timid statement denouncing reports labeling it as a supporter of foreign agents, following news stories in the pro-government media which stated that the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) funded network is an arm of the CIA. Other civil society organisations that are involved in non-political activities are also extremely concerned.

What makes Kavala’s arrest so pervasive is that it sends the message that the government has not been satisfied by the level of the crackdown it has already imposed on civil society. A total of 1,125 associations and 41 foundations were shut down under cabinet decrees since the declaration of the post-coup attempt state of emergency. Civil society leaders, who might have spoken out on Kavala’s arrest or not, now understand that Erdoğan may resort to Putin-like measures, banning civil society activities entirely and labelling its representatives as “foreign agents”.

That fear echoed in the initial remarks of Kavala’s academic and activist wife Ayşe Buğra, who said in a statement she made after her husband’s arrest: ““With the arrest ruling we have not only lost Osman Kavala’s freedom but at the same time our hopes in democracy, peace and the rule of law.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1510241893657-0016a8b6-b819-2″ taxonomies=”7355″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Broadcasting liberty across Europe

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”From broadcasting uprisings to employing Russian spies, Radio Free Europe brings news to poorly served regions. In the autumn 2017 issue of Index on Censorship magazine, Sally Gimson looks at the station’s history and asks if it is still needed today”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Gregory Baldwin / Ikon

Gregory Baldwin / Ikon

In Georgia, the future of Radio Free Europe, and sister station Radio Liberty, is looking precarious. This summer the Georgian government’s central broadcaster shut down two of RFE/RL’s most popular political programmes. The broadcaster said it was part of a wider restructure, but civil society organisations condemned the move and suggested the station wanted to eliminate critical viewpoints. The move and the subsequent outcry highlight the role RFE continues to play, namely to often act as a platform for free expression in parts of Europe where these values are strained.

Radio Free Europe and Russian station Radio Liberty, which it merged with, have been broadcasting to eastern Europe and Russia since 1950. While its remit originally was to fight communism, it now states its function as serving the cause of democracy more generally.

Today in Chechnya, for example, RFE is the only station where you will hear reports from journalists and stringers in the Chechen language about the influence of Isis and the persecution of gay people. It is the only Western international station operating in Moldova, even if it broadcasts for only a few hours a day. In Armenia, its TV provides a counterbalance to government-controlled media, as well as broadcasting to the wider diaspora. And in Kazakhstan, it provided special coverage of the early parliamentary election last year with six hours of live-streamed video on its website.

John O’Sullivan, executive editor of RFE between 2008 and 2012, argues passionately that “the radios”, as he calls the stations, have key roles to play in making sure people have a strong source of news and hear different viewpoints, and in holding governments to account with local journalists reporting on the ground.

“At the moment, there is a moral war between all these countries and the argument that commercial stations can do this job is fine, except they can’t do the job of the radios,” he told Index. “CNN is … never going to have a lot of correspondents in Armenia and never going to have correspondents in Chechnya. It’s going to be doing a story once every three months. Those audiences need it every day.”

Originally set up as an intelligence services-led project, RFE aimed to counter what the US government saw as superior propaganda coming out of the Soviet Union. Although primarily funded by the CIA, it was promoted to the US public as a project for truth and freedom to which they should contribute. Future US president Ronald Reagan, a young actor in the early 1950s, fronted up the public service advertisement, encouraging donations with the exhortation: “This station daily pierces the Iron Curtain with the truth, answering the lies of the Kremlin and bringing a message of hope to millions trapped behind the Iron Curtain.”

Victoria Phillips, who runs the RFE research project at Columbia University, told Index: “These men [who founded RFE] … really did believe in the power of truth and freedom of ideas, and when I read about some of those people, you don’t like the fact that they tried to invade places, and they had coups, but in the end the core was a belief in the power of ideas, and if ideas are allowed to vent then good will take place…”[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-quote-left” color=”custom” align=”right” custom_color=”#dd3333″][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”2/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”RFE was accused of encouraging insurgents to believe the USA would intervene on their behalf militarily” google_fonts=”font_family:Libre%20Baskerville%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20italic%3A400%3Aitalic”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_column_text]In the beginning, the broadcasts used émigrés and dissidents for their programmes. They spoke from the headquarters in Munich to their countrymen and women in their own languages and were broadcast on short wave radios, which were widely accessible. It was an alternative source of news to the official Soviet broadcasters.

During the Cold War RFE was also a hotbed of spies, double agents and political resistance. The Bulgarian novelist and playwright Georgi Markov was assassinated in London with the tip of a poisoned umbrella in part because of his RFE In Absentia programme. Markov had dined with the communist elite and knew all about their lives. He revelled in satirising them and the absurdity of the system for his audience back home. According to the communist government he “insolently mocked” the regime and “encouraged dissidence”.

When O’Sullivan was executive director RFE/RL, he remembers the Iranian secret service taking pictures of the Iranian journalists coming into the offices, then in Prague, in an effort to intimidate them. “We know in a general way that some of the countries had agents embedded in the service which broadcast to them. We didn’t know who they were obviously. And in one particular case, in the Russian service, [there was] a man who had defected [back to Russia]. He had been in RFE during the Cold War and he defected and went to work for Radio Moscow and he subsequently wrote a tell-all memoir in which he had to confess that journalistic standards in Radio Moscow were well below the standards in Radio Free Europe, or in his case Radio Liberty.”

Later, RFE played an instrumental role in the fall of the USSR. As writer Irena Maryniak explained in an article for Index in 2010: “Western radios became a forum for dissenting views and personalities: people like Václav Havel (later president of the Czech Republic); the Russian physicist and civil rights activist Andrei Sakharov; the Polish historian Adam Michnik; or indeed maverick party members like Boris Yeltsin, who broadcast on Radio Liberty when he was out of favour with colleagues at home.”

Today, many of the 23 countries where RFE works are areas where the USA still wants foreign policy influence. It broadcasts across a huge range of media, not just radio. And the languages and countries the station covers, from the Caucasus and the Balkans to Afghanistan via Iran and Pakistan, read like a map of East-West tension.

Indeed, the congressionally funded Broadcasting Board of Governors, which has openly funded RFE since the 1970s and pours $117 million of taxpayers’ money into the service, is robust about its “soft power” intentions. Its 2016 budget report contains headings such as Countering a Revanchist Russia. And the report explicitly links broadcasting with foreign policy priorities.

So can we trust its journalism? The answer from O’Sullivan is yes. It’s not constrained to put the US view in the same way as Voice of America, and it actively seeks to encourage free speech and news coverage in countries where this is underdeveloped or difficult. Indeed, many reporters risk their lives to report for RFE, such as Khadija Ismayilova, who was imprisoned in Azerbaijan for exposing the president’s link to corruption. She was awarded the Unesco/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize in 2016 for her fearless work for the station. The station also won two prizes at the New York Festivals’ International Awards this spring, including one for the Kyrgyz service’s short video feature A Snowy Trek on Horseback to Teach School.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-quote-left” color=”custom” align=”right” custom_color=”#dd3333″][/vc_column][vc_column width=”2/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”The people who were broadcasting suddenly realised that there were huge ramifications if you promised, or seemed to promise, something and it didn’t come true.” google_fonts=”font_family:Libre%20Baskerville%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20italic%3A400%3Aitalic”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]There have been darker moments at RFE, the most famous being its reporting on the Hungarian uprising of 1956 when at least 2,500 people were killed and many more were forced into exile, imprisoned and deported. RFE was accused of encouraging insurgents to believe the USA would intervene on their behalf militarily and therefore making people risk their lives unnecessarily. A couple of its programmes offered tactical military advice, and one commentary told people not to give up their weapons.

George Urban, the director of the Radio Free Europe division at the time, admitted they got it wrong. He said: “The radio was young and inexperienced. After barely five years of broadcasting, its management was still testing the instruments and boundary lines of the Cold War and was simply not up to the task of responding with clarity or finesse to its first great challenge. Hungary, its baptism of fire, cost it dear.”

As Phillips said: “The people who were broadcasting suddenly realised that there were huge ramifications if you promised, or seemed to promise, something and it didn’t come true. That people were going to die; your friends were going to die.”

Despite these controversies, RFE has survived, in part because the US Congress has continued to invest in the European operation, if on a smaller scale than during the Cold War. But O’Sullivan believes “the radios” should be given a lot more money and are needed more than ever to compete with stations like Russia Today (with a budget of about $300 million in 2016) and Al Jazeera.

“I think that people will accept there is an argument for good journalism which gives the news about their own country to people whose country would like to deprive them of it, and good journalism which sets standards to which we hope the journalists in transitioning countries will aspire and gradually achieve,” he said.

This article was updated on 1 November 2017 to include additional information.[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_column_text]This article first appeared in the Autumn 2017 issue of Index on Censorship magazine, an award-winning, quarterly magazine dedicated to fighting for free expression and against censorship across the globe since 1972. You can subscribe here or via Exact Editions here. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”From the Archives”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”89160″ img_size=”213×289″ alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0306422011399691″][vc_custom_heading text=”Surviving Lukashenko ” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.sagepub.com%2Fdoi%2Fpdf%2F10.1177%2F0306422011399691|||”][vc_column_text]March 2011

James Kirchick looks at the climate for alternative media in the aftermath of the 2010 Belarus elections.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”94267″ img_size=”213×289″ alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03064228208533431″][vc_custom_heading text=”Extolling the communist party” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.sagepub.com%2Fdoi%2Fpdf%2F10.1080%2F03064228208533431|||”][vc_column_text]October 1982

Janis Sapiets questions whether Soviet broadcasting is partaking in censorship or responsibility to the party. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”94034″ img_size=”213×289″ alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03064228308533503″][vc_custom_heading text=”Censorship in retreat” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.sagepub.com%2Fdoi%2Fpdf%2F10.1080%2F03064228308533503|||”][vc_column_text]April 1983

Hungary’s best-known novelist writes on the craving in Eastern Europe for communication and exchanges of ideas.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”Free to air” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2F2017%2F09%2Ffree-to-air%2F|||”][vc_column_text]Through a range of in-depth reporting, interviews and illustrations, the autumn 2017 issue of Index on Censorship magazine explores how radio has been reborn and is innovating ways to deliver news in war zones, developing countries and online

With: Ismail Einashe, Peter Bazalgette, Wana Udobang[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”95458″ img_size=”medium” alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2017/09/free-to-air/”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”Subscribe” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2Fsubscribe%2F|||”][vc_column_text]In print, online. In your mailbox, on your iPad.

Subscription options from £18 or just £1.49 in the App Store for a digital issue.

Every subscriber helps support Index on Censorship’s projects around the world.

SUBSCRIBE NOW[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]