UZBEK INTERNATIONAL MEDIA CONFERENCE A BIG SHOW

C O N F I D E N T I A L TASHKENT 000730 SIPDIS DEPT FOR SCA, SCA/PPD, AND DRL E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/24/2018 TAGS: PHUM KPAO PGOV PREL UZ SUBJECT: UZBEK INTERNATIONAL MEDIA CONFERENCE A BIG SHOW Classified By: Classified By: IO Molly Stephenson for reasons 1.4 (b) a nd (d). ¶1. (SBU) Summary: The Government of Uzbekistan organized a "Media Freedom in a Modern Democratic Society" conference on June 9-10 in Tashkent which provided little debate on press freedom in Uzbekistan. The event was originally to be co-sponsored by the EU, but EU Embassies pulled out of the conference after the GOU refused to allow independent journalists and human rights activists to participate. (Note: The EU will attempt to reschedule a genuine conference on media freedom with government participation in the fall/winter, but success is unclear. End note.) Representatives from over 15 different countries, including the United States, participated in this heavily orchestrated event. Despite all the empty talk at the conference, we believe some of the issues raised there could take hold, including the development of a professional code of ethics for Uzbek journalists. End summary. "Empty Shadow of the EU Conference" -------------- ¶2. (C) The EU had planned to expand their dialogue on human rights and organize a seminar on media freedom that would include media experts from Reporters without Borders (RWB) and other human rights groups. The Uzbeks initially agreed to the event, but later refused to allow the EU media experts and human rights activists to participate. The event was delayed once, and then the Uzbeks went ahead and held the conference without the participation of EU Embassies, RWB media experts or rights activists. Human Rights Watch, International Crisis Group, Open Society Institute, and RWB issued a joint statement on June 9 describing the June conference as "a sad farce" and "empty shadow" of what should have been a substantive dialogue on media freedom. British Third Secretary Ben Greenwood told poloff that the EU would still try to organize a genuine conference on press freedom with government participation in September. The German DCM mentioned that the GOU still claims the conference will take place sometime in 2008, but both he and the French DCM questioned if any substantive conference would take place. (Comment: As EU diplomats noted in conversations with poloff, the Uzbeks are likely to claim that the June conference met the EU's request to hold a conference on press freedom. But as they noted, the June event "clearly did not qualify as a press freedom conference," and the Uzbeks "are not fooling anyone." End comment.) Speakers Hand-picked by the GOU -------------- ¶3. (C) Information Officer observed several of the conference's sessions on June 9-10. All conference speakers appeared to be heavily screened by the GOU. The AmCit participants -- Marina Barnett, Program Manager for the Russia & Eurasia Program at the Carnegie Endowment, and Peter Hickman, retired USIA officer and consultant for the National Press Club in Washington, DC -- shared that they were told by Uzbek Embassy officials in Washington not to criticize the situation here. (Note: The titles of their talks, as they were submitted to the Uzbek Embassy, were altered in the official conference agenda. End note.) Many of the international speakers had limited ties to journalism, calling into question their "media expert status." The India DCM shared that the India participant, A.K. Dhar from "Political Events" magazine, was "not a heavyweight, but well-liked by the local authorities." Dhar and the Kuwaiti participant both had observed the December Uzbek Presidential elections. Their praise for the "democratic" and "fine" election featured heavily in the government-controlled press last winter. They echoed their glowing reviews at this media conference, oftentimes at the prompting of GOU officials. ¶4. (SBU) As expected, Uzbek officials and local media representatives sang the praises of the current press environment in Uzbekistan. Alisher Muminov, Head of the Parliamentary Committee on Information and Communication Technology, highlighted the legal framework in Uzbekistan which guarantees freedom of the press here. (Note: As typically is the case for Uzbekistan, there was no discussion on implementation of the law, just what legislation was on the books. End note.) Firdafs Abdukhalikov, Head of the National Association of Electronic Media in Uzbekistan, shared that "over 1,000 media outlets are active in Uzbekistan, representing all political parties and Uzbek values." (Note: Officials and government-controlled media reports oftentimes describe the democratic freedoms promoted by the West as "alien ideas" which will undermine "Uzbek values." End note.) ¶5. (SBU) Speaking in fluent Russian, AmCit Barnett outlined recent cases through which the U.S. press unveiled abuses -- Walter Reed Army Medical Hospital, the Plame/Wilson case, Abu Ghraib, and others. Unfortunately, Information Officer believed that the audience left with the feeling that the United States only has human rights abuses and other problems, not that free media plays a crucial role in guaranteeing American democracy. Information Officer did not observe the other AmCit speaker's talk. Slightest Criticism/Ideas for Change -------------- ¶6. (SBU) The General Director of Japanese TV Company "NHK" Toshiyuki Sato shared that a free press bolsters respect for a country in the world community. He added that international rankings on press freedom are important tools to assess the true situation in a country because they reflect the opinions of professional journalists. (Note: Sato did not mention Uzbekistan's low scores specifically, but alluded to them. These comments came at the end of his talk. When GOU moderators sensed his veiled criticism, they quickly called for him to conclude his remarks. End note.) Mjusa Sever, Country Director for USAID-supported Tashkent-based Open Dialogue Project and a former CNN journalist, added that "government needs to open up to get accurate information to the public." She argued that Uzbek "editors and chiefs needed training and journalists need a professional code of ethics;" she forwarded sample ethics codes to government officials after the conference. Sever also suggested that "each Ministry should be obliged to hold monthly press conferences" to share information with the media. COMMENT: PERHAPS A "SHADOW," BUT NOT A COMPLETE "FARCE" -------------- -------------- ¶7. (C) Comment: This staged gathering was perhaps just a "shadow" of the originally planned EU media conference, but it was not entirely without value. The agenda was packed, possibly by design to limit discussions. The "media experts" comments were distant from the realities we see on the ground. (Note: The conference occurred the same days that a "documentary" aired which implicitly threatened journalists affiliated with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. End note.) On the other hand, despite all the empty talk, we believe some issues may take hold here, namely the journalists' professional code of ethics, which seemed to resonate with the government. Providing assistance on developing a professional code for Uzbek journalists could possibly serve as an avenue of cooperation for us with the Uzbeks. We have found that the most effective approach for dealing with the Uzbek government on human rights issues is to offer step-by-step assistance in bringing its standards for professionals up to international levels, not blatant criticism of the human rights situation. We also welcomed the issues of media freedom entering the public domain, albeit through the pro-government spin of local government-controlled media. Any true improvement in the media environment in Uzbekistan will take time, but we believe that if the Uzbeks develop (and implement) a serious professional ethics code for their journalists, this will be a step in the right direction. NORLAND