Litvina: Authorities impudently impose their vision of media’s role on society
During the conference dedicated to the democratization of media in Belarus on June 6-7 in Warsaw, Zhanna Litvina, the chairperson of the Belarusian Association of Journalists (BAJ), said in an interview with the European Radio for Belarus that this meeting is especially acute in the light of recent changes in Europe’s stance towards Belarus and in the conditions of an undeclared war of the Belarusian authorities against independent media. Is this the first conference of this kind?
In 2002, the Council of Europe hosted a meeting in Strasbourg where the then Belarus’s information minister and the representatives of the Belarusian Association of Journalists took part. We had an equal opportunity to express our opinions over the media situation in Belarus. During the hearings, the information minister promised to allow European experts to scrutinize the then median law draft. It was a surprise but important result of the hearings.
Was that draft legislation eventually considered?
Unfortunately, that legislation was not sent to European experts. On the other hand, it has not considered or passed by the Belarusian parliament.
Why is it necessary to hold this conference now?
Since the 2002 hearings in Strasbourg, the media situation has worsened catastrophically. There is a great need to once draw attention to the problems in Belarus, associated wit the operation of independent media and the freedom of speech. Moreover, it seemed that this meeting would fit into the context of the change of policy towards Belarus as well as in terms of the possible dialogue. Besides, the return of Belarus to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe remains an acute issue.
Who is attending the conference?
The initiative to organize the conference came from the Council of Europe’s Conference of NGOs and the Council of Europe’s sub-committee on the media, headed by Andrew McIntosh.
Is anyone from Belarus officials participating?
This is the most painful issue, because they are not attending the meeting today. It is understandable, because this is a conference format, not hearings. The conference has the right to formulate demands, pass documents and later propose them for consideration by the Belarusian side.
What are the respected results of the conference apart from a resolution?
I think it would be very important to reach an agreement on the establishment of a European council on the media situation in Belarus. In other words, we need assistance and cooperation to conduct monitoring and expertise of the media issues in Belarus.
You’ve said the media situation has significantly deteriorated over the past years. What does it mean?
The authorities in Belarus impudently impose their vision of media’s role and place in the society. These contradictions irritate greatly in some cases, when the government applies the mechanisms of economic discrimination towards the independent press.
For instance?
I read an interview with information minister (Uladzimir) Rusakevich after he received Francisco Skaryna Medal. He boasted about two major achievements in the media sector. First, there are equal economic opportunities for the operation of mass media with various forms of ownership. Secondly, the state-run media dominate the country’s information space. This is an absolutely shameful situation. This is something to be ashamed not to be awarded with the country’s main decoration.
What are the real conditions in which independent media in Belarus operate?
The few existing newspapers have problems with distribution. 13 newspapers cannot be distributed through subscription. 16 newspapers have problems with the distribution through kiosks. That’s why we demand to allow independent newspapers Narodnaya Volya and Tovarisch to be published in Belarus not in Smolensk, Russia as is the case now. We demand to lift the ban for the distribution of non-state newspapers. The permissive principle of accreditation of journalists also remains an acute problem.
In 2002, the Council of Europe hosted a meeting in Strasbourg where the then Belarus’s information minister and the representatives of the Belarusian Association of Journalists took part. We had an equal opportunity to express our opinions over the media situation in Belarus. During the hearings, the information minister promised to allow European experts to scrutinize the then median law draft. It was a surprise but important result of the hearings.
Was that draft legislation eventually considered?
Unfortunately, that legislation was not sent to European experts. On the other hand, it has not considered or passed by the Belarusian parliament.
Why is it necessary to hold this conference now?
Since the 2002 hearings in Strasbourg, the media situation has worsened catastrophically. There is a great need to once draw attention to the problems in Belarus, associated wit the operation of independent media and the freedom of speech. Moreover, it seemed that this meeting would fit into the context of the change of policy towards Belarus as well as in terms of the possible dialogue. Besides, the return of Belarus to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe remains an acute issue.
Who is attending the conference?
The initiative to organize the conference came from the Council of Europe’s Conference of NGOs and the Council of Europe’s sub-committee on the media, headed by Andrew McIntosh.
Is anyone from Belarus officials participating?
This is the most painful issue, because they are not attending the meeting today. It is understandable, because this is a conference format, not hearings. The conference has the right to formulate demands, pass documents and later propose them for consideration by the Belarusian side.
What are the respected results of the conference apart from a resolution?
I think it would be very important to reach an agreement on the establishment of a European council on the media situation in Belarus. In other words, we need assistance and cooperation to conduct monitoring and expertise of the media issues in Belarus.
You’ve said the media situation has significantly deteriorated over the past years. What does it mean?
The authorities in Belarus impudently impose their vision of media’s role and place in the society. These contradictions irritate greatly in some cases, when the government applies the mechanisms of economic discrimination towards the independent press.
For instance?
I read an interview with information minister (Uladzimir) Rusakevich after he received Francisco Skaryna Medal. He boasted about two major achievements in the media sector. First, there are equal economic opportunities for the operation of mass media with various forms of ownership. Secondly, the state-run media dominate the country’s information space. This is an absolutely shameful situation. This is something to be ashamed not to be awarded with the country’s main decoration.
What are the real conditions in which independent media in Belarus operate?
The few existing newspapers have problems with distribution. 13 newspapers cannot be distributed through subscription. 16 newspapers have problems with the distribution through kiosks. That’s why we demand to allow independent newspapers Narodnaya Volya and Tovarisch to be published in Belarus not in Smolensk, Russia as is the case now. We demand to lift the ban for the distribution of non-state newspapers. The permissive principle of accreditation of journalists also remains an acute problem.
