The Voice of Mirza Xazar: Category Human rights

At Radio Free Europe/ Liberty, bulk of discriminated employees is Muslims

Mirza Khazar — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:58:01 -0400

Tue 13 April 2010 | 07:22 GMT

News.Az

By Alsou Taheri

Hillary Clinton Serves on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Board of Directors.

(PRAGUE) To gala reception in Prague Castle that on April 8th crowned the ceremony of signing the new Russian-American strategic arms reduction treaty by presidents Medvedev and Obama, Czech senator Jaromir Stetina was not invited. Maybe the Russians did not want to see there a well-known politician who permanently protests the trampling of human rights in Chechnya. However, quite a different scenario is thinkable too. The Deputy chairman of the Czech Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Defense and Security, a member of the Senate Commission on International Support for Democracy, senator Stetina in mid-February sharply criticized human rights violations at the Prague-based American RFE/RL. Perhaps he did not quite fit into celebratory crowd that included Hillary Clinton.

As the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is a full member of U.S. Federal Agency Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) that serves simultaneously as RFE/RL corporate Board of Directors. It is a very exclusive corporate board, for RFE/RL is financed by American Congress and all BBG members are assigned by the President of the United States personally with consent and approval of U.S. Senate. It is to American senators that Jaromir Stetina addressed his internationally widely published letter “Actions of Radio Free Europe Damage Czech Republic and the United States”. Personal copies of the letter were forwarded to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. In his letter, Jaromir Stetina calls discrimination of RFE/RL foreign employees “ patiently indecent, unfair, cynical and hypocritical”.

The great majority of discrimination victims are Muslims. Broadcasters, editors, producers, technicians… RFE/RL broadcasts in 28 languages. Eighteen, as listed on RFE/RL website, are spoken predominantly by Muslim people: Albanian, Arabic, Avar, Azerbaijani, Bashkir, Bosnian, Chechen, Circassian, Crimean Tatar, Dari, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Pashto, Persian, Tajik, Tatar, Turkmen, Uzbek.

Discrimination as a Matter of Policy

According to the “United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994”, BBG, which oversees all U.S. non-military broadcasters, “makes all major policy determinations governing the operations of RFE/RL” that “shall be consistent with the broad foreign policy objectives of the United States”. By law, it is precisely the function of the Secretary of State within BBG and RFE/RL to make sure that their policies are in consent with political intentions of the United States. The BBG’s Office of Human Resources “provides worldwide personnel management policies, programs, and services that enable the Agency to carry out its mission”. What are those personnel policies?

In his letter to American colleagues Czech senator Stetina wrote:
“RFE/RL hires its foreign employees on labor contracts, which explicitly deny them protections and guarantees automatically granted to any employee in this country by Czech labor laws. At the same time, as you are definitely aware, American laws, including Civil Rights Act of 1964, 1991 and District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977, are not applicable to foreigners working for American employers outside the United States – even if RFE/RL preprinted uniform contracts are composed with the reference to American laws. It is deceptive reference.

In fact, foreigners employed by RFE/RL are covered only by RFE/RL internal policies evidently formulated by BBG. By RFE/RL employment policies, its foreign personnel in Prague may be fired at any time, for any reason or without any stated reason whatsoever, without prior warning, without any preliminary disciplinary measures if deserved; and even without contractual severance pay for the years of service unless one signs the letter of consent with such employment termination and, also in writing, gives up the inalienable (at least, in Czech Republic) human and civil right to seek protection in the courts of law.
By such a mode, RFE/RL had disposed of quite a number of its foreign employees in Prague.”

To RFE/RL foreign employees also are not applicable, among others, such critically important American labor protection laws as Fair Labor Standards Act, Equal Pay Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, Family and Medical Leave Act.

Senator Stetina never received any answer from his Washington addressees. Recently, by the “mode” described in the senator’s letter was fired an employee of RFE/RL Turkmen Service. Sacked in legal vacuum. Indeed, as wrote Armenian newspaper AZG (People),

“There is less foreign detainees placed in legal vacuum at the U.S. naval base on Guantanamo, Cuba, than foreign journalists deprived of legal protections by the U.S. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in Prague, Czech Republic.”

Their Words are Beautiful. Their Deeds are…

President Obama’s appeal to the Muslim world delivered last June in Cairo can be quoted line by line as a spirit-lifting poem:
“I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: rule of law and the equal administration of justice; those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere”; “There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us”, “Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead.”
And BBG started to act, i. e. write boldly. Instead of changing its discriminative policies and actions, it designed and published its “Implementation Strategies” Build on BBG Reach and Impact Within the Muslim World. Let us quote BBG strategies one by one:

“Help audiences in authoritarian countries understand the principles and practices of democratic, free and just societies”. They understand. And not only the audiences in authoritarian countries. Hence, some expressive titles of the articles published in print and electronic media in English, Czech, Russian, Armenian, Serbo-Croatian, etc:
"Radio Liberty Betrays its Ideals", "Radio Free Europe – Guantanamo in Prague", "Equality With Precondition. Practice of Free Europe Contradicts Its Ideals", "U.S. Attorney General is Asked to Investigate Fraud at RFE/RL", "Doomsday of Radio Liberty. From Double Standards to Double Morals?” "A Sense of Betrayal", “ Czech Politician Accuses U.S. of Discrimination Against Foreign Journalists”, “On Air in Legal Vacuum”, “Czech MP Writes to U.S. Counterparts Over Work Conditions in RFE/RL”, and so on.
BBG: “Broaden cooperation within U.S. public diplomacy”. International media:
"New Administration Must Undo RFE/RL Anti-Diplomacy Abroad", "BBG, RFE/RL: Bring Public Diplomats Instead of Public Bureaucrats", "Don’t Feed Kremlin’s Public Diplomacy With U.S. Public Hypocrisy", "Public Disaster Instead of Public Diplomacy" …
BBG looks into the future: “Engage the world in conversation about America”. God save America and its reputation should U.S. institutions BBG and RFE/RL themselves become a topic of such conversation, for discussion will inevitably touch upon

The Culture of Lies

Suffice it to say that on BBG website one reads that this Agency is “an exiting place to work” -- a straightforward self-serving honest lie. In reality, BBG is, year to year, officially rated as the worst workplace within American government.

RFE/RL is more sophisticated. On RFE/RL web pages one would not find a single word about the ongoing lawsuits triggered by its no-rights-to-foreigners employment policies. One court case (plaintiff Snezana Pelivan, Croatian citizen) is pending in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Here the American bureaucrats managing RFE/RL contrived to get involved as a defendant the Czech Republic, RFE/RL host country. Another case (plaintiff Armenian citizen Anna Karapetian) is in the Czech Supreme Court. Instead, one could read there RFE/RL Mission Statement: “The first requirement of democracy is a well informed citizenry”, “RFE/RL provides objective news” serving as “a model for local media”. Fortunately, “local media” is less prone to lies-by-omission than its condescending tutor financed by American taxpayer. Again just a few international tell-tell headlines:
“Cases of Karapetian and Pelivan as Morality Check for Obama Administration. Radio Free Europe to Face European Court of Human Rights”, “Czech MP Questions Pelivan Case”, "Czech Sovereignty Ends at RFE/RL", "Free Europe With Its Own Laws in Colonial Czech Republic?", "From Human Rights Show to Human Rights Court", "Prague Spring of 2009 Leads to Strasbourg", ”News Flashes From Radio Free/Radio Liberty. The Face of America Abroad”, “Czech senator angry about Croat’s lawsuit”, etc.

Is Hillary Clinton, as the BBG and RFE official, to be blamed personally for BBG-RFE/RL shamefully discriminative policies? For instance, a pregnant Uzbek woman (or Afghan, Albanian Arab, Avar, Azerbaijani… and further on by alphabet) receives 16 weeks maternity leave prescribed by her employment contract with RFE/RL. Her female Czech colleague at RFE/RL gets 28 weeks, i.e. almost three months more, as provided by Czech law to anyone else in the Czech Republic. To whom the discriminated Uzbek woman shall complain? For her, by American law, U.S. courts are of no access as to the foreigner working for American company (RFE/RL) outside the United States. Czech courts are of no use to her because her discriminative contract with RFE/RL is not governed by Czech laws -- by RFE/RL decision.

Should she complain directly to Hillary Clinton? She could, but will she be heard? Some of her discriminated colleagues complained. They never got any answer. And the question remains: Is not the Secretary of State who time and again raises her voice in defense of women’s rights worldwide, personally responsible for doing nothing to eradicate glaring national inequality in American institutions where she has a decisive voice? Hillary Clinton during her presidential campaign proclaimed:
“I’m going to send a message to the world that America is back – we’re not the arrogant power that we’ve been for the last several years. We want to be an admired country again in the world. There is a lot of work to be done.”
She was not elected a president but what prevents her to clean up the stables at BBG and RFE/RL, the American organizations directly to her entrusted as to the Secretary of State? In the meantime, respectable Czech newspaper quoted by senator Stetina in his letter to American senators stands correct:
“Prague headquarters of RFE/RL, which pretends to be a messenger of freedom, democracy and the rule of law, behaves as an employer in such a way as if the principles it heralds, are relevant “just” for the whole planet but not for what is going on inside that estimable organization itself.”

Simple Steps Instead of Pompous Words

The second time within one year Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton visited Prague in their official capacity. The President definitely lived up to his campaign promise -- to “Show the world the best face of America”. Prague also fulfilled its role of a perfect host and cheerfully said “cheese”, as was expected. There is even a good chance that now to the hospitable Czech Republic will be assigned an American ambassador. That largely ceremonial place is vacant exactly since the day of Obama’s inauguration.

After the fateful 9/11/2001, State Department has designated two most important American institutions in Prague to be protected with special care: the embassy and RFE/RL. In the nearest future, the Obama’s administration will restore the representative dignity to the embassy. Concerning RFE/RL, real dignity should be restored to that historically valuable American institution of trusted public diplomacy. To quote senator Stetina again:
“There are two simple steps dictated by common sense and by presumption of moral and political sensitivity:
Step 1. Harmful lawsuits should be stopped. RFE/RL should be instructed to make a peaceful offer to the plaintiffs, Snjezana Pelivan and Anna Karapetian, commensurate with human and professional injustice suffered by them already;
Step 2. Abandon RFE/RL discriminative employment policies.”
Those steps are not contained in BBG’s “Implementation Strategy”. But the presumption of moral and political sensitivity is absent there, either.

Alsou Taheri is Prague-based journalist working at RFE/RL.

source: http://www.news.az/articles/13149/print

Comments To My Performance Review - 26 September 2002

Mirza Khazar — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 03:32:42 -0400

Comments To My Performance Review
26 September 2002

I strongly disagree with and object to the rating of my Performance Review and the comments included in the review. I consider the final rating, the "NI" in "Professional Standard" and "Judgment" all to be mistaken and the reflection not of an objective evaluation of my professional performance but rather an indication of personal feelings and deep bias. I was the only journalist at RFE/RL to be subjected to a last minute Performance Review. This indicates that I was singled out for special treatment not for reasons of any alleged performance deficiencies but for other, wholly unprofessional, reasons. These reasons are addressed below:

1. In a summary comment, the reviewer writes: "Too often, Mr. Michaeli injects his personal opinion into Service programming. One example the editorial on the Jewish cemeteries (emphasis added/the reviewer's terminology) was discussed at this year's program review." The reviewer then concludes: "The Service programming does not adhere to our professional codes. This is why the overall rating is NEEDS IMPROVEMENT."

Comment: It is clear that the reviewer had no example or evidence to support this conclusion and rating other than the reviewer's own reaction to my commentary on "Jewish cemeteries". The reviewer failed to discuss details of the commentary. This failure and the use of the suggestive words "Jewish cemeteries" reveal the reviewer's bias and intent. The reviewer conveys the misleading impression that my commentary is about the history and presence of Jewish Cemeteries (in Azerbaijan). In fact, my commentary addressed the issue of the desecration and destruction of 49 grave- sites at the Jewish Cemetery in Baku in November 2001. Our Service reports on and sometimes provides commentary on events and developments of importance and interest to our listeners. When our buro in Baku learned of this particular event through contact with the head of the Baku Jewish Community, every effort was made to obtain additional, accurate information from other sources. This entailed timely action on the part of our stringer who, in the course of two hours, procured reactions and information from The Interior Ministry of Azerbaijan, The Office of the President, and the Israeli Embassy. All of these sources confirmed the initial report on this case of vandalism and desecration. The police official who was investigating the matter was interviewed and we also aired the opinions and views in regard to this event of all political parties, including the ruling political party. Local print and electronic media outlets in Azerbaijan, with the exception of the State run TV, reported on the event. Surely, desecration of a cemetery in Baku is a matter of interest and importance to our listeners. Surely, the importance and interest of this event transcend the particular religious identity of those whose graves were desecrated. This is certainly true of Azerbaijan and to suggest otherwise would speak more to the reviewer's bias than to the concerns of our Azerbaijani listeners. When the local media give extensive coverage to an event, should RFE/RL minimize its coverage and commentary because the desecration and vandalism involved a "Jewish cemetery" because the Service Director happens to be Jewish himself? No matter what unfortunate bias may motivate the reviewer, this story could not and should not be ignored and it certainly was deserving of commentary. s there any reasonable person in the world who will not denounce vandalism at cemetery, be it Muslim, Christian, or Jewish?

The commentary I provided, following good journalistic practice and RFE/RL policy, was kept separate from our stringer reports on the event. My commentary was, of course, clearly labeled as commentary, again in accordance with our Professional Code and the highest standards of journalism.

According to our Professional Code:

C. Analysis, Commentary and Editorials

. Commentary, which is to be clearly labeled as such, is analytical in content and judicious in tone but reflects the personal judgment or opinion of the author on a particular issue. (See Professional Code)

"Our broadcasters and journalists never reflect their own views and opinions in our news stories: commentaries and points of view must be clearly labeled as such."

Clearly, in direct contrast to the reviewer's view, the Professional Code and RFE/RL Editorial Policy recognize the legitimate role of commentary as long as commentary is clearly labeled as commentary. Since my commentary on this event was clearly labeled as commentary and kept separate from news coverage, as has always been the case with all my commentaries and expressions of my views, I have not violated any editorial policy at RFE/RL or of good journalistic practice in general. The accusation that I have violated the Professional Code or other editorial policies by "injecting personal opinion into Service programming" is baseless. There is no Editorial Policy at RFE/RL which forbids broadcasters from writing commentaries. The reviewer, then, is in error and this baseless accusation can in no way serve as grounds for rating my overall performance as "Needs Improvement". Moreover, the reviewer's personal view of my commentary, should remain just that, a personal view. To permit personal views to replace objective analysis is to invite a distortion of the evaluation process and a challenge to journalistic integrity.

In February 2002 the Intermedia Research Center conducted a Panel Review of our November programming. Of eight panelists, a single panelist expressed “outrage” at my commentary on vandalism at the Jewish Cemetery. He did it in an aggressive, insulting, uncivil manner. In my email message to Jeff Trimble, Don Jensen, and Tom Dine on May 3, 2002, I protested this open attack and aspersions on my character, my religion, and my private life:

“The InterMedia has issued a review of Internal Monitoring Panel on Azerbaijani Service programs for the next Program Review. I appreciate the work the InterMedia has done.

I am not pleased with (basically biased) comments of some panelists about my commentaries on the defacement of Jewish graves at the Jewsih cemetery in Baku such as:

"...Khazar's commentary of 24 November was biased and driven by personal ambition, which did not produce a good impression".(see page 12 of InterMedia Listener Panel Review)

This is what a Panelist Nr 1 and some others has to say about my commentary. They all applauded similar views expressed by Azerbaijani politicians, religious leaders, and officials, but amasingly, were outraged when I (Khazar) have expressed same views. What does a commentary on a crime such as destruction of (Jewish or else) cemetery has in common with my "personal ambitions" remains unclear. This is why, in my view, the InterMedia decided (unfortunately) to include here a "Translator's note" "explaining" (amasing isn't it!) the meaning of my (Khazar's) "personal ambition": " Translator's note: I believe the respondent is implying that Khazar is an Azerbaijani of Jewish extraction, from small community of Jews who live in the mountainous Guba region(?)". (see page 12 of InterMedia Listener Panel Review)

Correction: The translator has absolutely nothing to do with my religion, my belief, my ethnic roots. It is my private business. It is not a public issue. Furthermore, contrary to the Translator's "expertise" I have never seen Guba and it's mountains in whole my life. The Guba mountains has nothing to do with me, my religion or my ethnic roots at all.

What this remark about "mountains of Guba", my private life, my religion has to do with the Program Review? Why this remark concerning only my private life, and believe was included into the Panel Review and distributed IN WRITING to several people?

I categorically protest against this kind of (unfortunate) publicty. It is not helpful. It is harming RFE/RL image. It has nothing to do with the Program Review.

rgds
Mirza"

Don Jensen was silent. Jeff Trimble responded the same day:

“Mirza, I appreciate your comments and I understand your reaction. Given the verve of the panelist's objection, I think it's worth looking together at a translation of this item in order to try to understand the nature of his concern. Let's discuss it together.

Rgds,
Jeff"

But Jeff Trimble did not act on his call for a discussion, "given the verve of the panelist's objection". I have asked Mr. Trimble to discuss this pressing issue, as he had suggested. In response, he has told me that he does not have the time. The discussion he suggested has never taken place. I tried to talk to Don Jensen, but he categorically refused to discuss the issue with me. “If you want to discuss this issue, NO COMMENT. I do not want to talk about this”. My protest remained unanswered. My supervisors, in fact, made no effort to help to me obtain a fair opportunity to respond to these baseless accusations. On the contrary, at the Program Review on May 31, 2002, both Jeff Trimble and Don Jensen used language very similar to that of the listener, suggesting that I had “personal ambitions” while writing about the vandalism which took place at the Jewish Cemetery. Don Jensen called my commentary “clearly labeled, but a wildly speculative commentary”. That the cemetery was, in fact, vandalized is not in dispute. Does my religious identity mean that I am not free (or able?) to provide professional commentary on an event when it happens to relate to persons, dead or alive, who share that religious identity? Is this special handling for an RFE/RL journalist, who happens to be Jewish? Is this religious profiling? I have provided more than 20 years of dedicated, recognized service to RFE/RL and prior to this entire matter I cannot recall a reviewer whose remarks clearly imply that there are special expectations of RFE/RL journalists who happen to be Jewish. Are the reviewer and those who have used some of his unfortunate language, ready to attack RFE/RL journalists who may report and offer commentary on any vandalism that might occur at Muslim or Christian cemeteries and accuse these journalists of "having personal ambitions"?

RFE/RL has always been dedicated to democracy and the values of an open society. These values surely include due process, a fair hearing, and opportunities for the accused to present his or her case. Don Jensen and Jeff Trimble, I regret to note, have not acted in the spirit of this RFE/RL dedication to these values. They have misrepresented the facts in this matter. An important part of this misrepresentation is their claim that the issue of my commentary on "Jewish cemeteries" (the reviewer's words) had been "discussed at this year's program review". No stretch of the imagination could enable one to describe that occurrence as a "discussion". At this program review, I was subjected to verbal attack with no real opportunity to respond. On the very few occasions when I managed to begin to speak, I was constantly interrupted, and not permitted to make a complete statement in response to the baseless accusations and allegations leveled against me. A program review in which one has little or no opportunity to contribute in a meaningful way, and discussion is precluded, is hardly a serious exercise aimed at improving programming quality.

At one point in this program review where open discussion and serious analysis were off the agenda, Jeff Trimble called the Azerbaijani Service programs "medieval". Objective observers would recognize the use of a term like this for what it is. In the absence of anything substantive to say or demonstrate, throw a term or name at someone. With some expression of disbelief, he asked: "How do these medieval programs attract the highest number of listeners at RFE/RL?" It seems not to have occurred to him that the answer is obvious. It is not "medieval" programming but rather programming of the highest professional quality which attracts the highest number of listeners. To suggest otherwise, is to demonstrate a lack of respect for the intelligence and discernment of our Azerbaijani listeners.

A program review with the deficiencies I have described is an abuse of the procedure and certainly is no basis for producing a "Needs Improvement" evaluation in regard to "Judgment", "Professional Standard", and overall performance. This particular program review on 31 May 2002 in its denial of due process, open discussion, and basic fairness, was also a violation of the values of a democratic society for which RFE/RL has always stood.

In a Development Plan the reviewer instructs me to avoid writing "personal commentaries". As I stated above, the Professional Code does not prohibit writing such commentaries. But even so, if my supervisors have believed there is no need for my commentaries, why did they not say: DO NOT WRITE COMMENTARIES? Why was I not spoken to about my commentaries on some kind of meaningful basis? Why has there been no effort, short of accusations at a program review, or performance reviews, to speak with me about alleged problems with editorial issues? If, in fact, there has been concern about editorial matters, it hardly speaks well to the professionalism of supervisors who have not communicated in any regular fashion any concerns.

2. The reviewer in a Summary comment says the following: "The most important fact is that long standing editorial issues remain year after year". I deeply disagree with this assessment. The assessment reflects the personal view of the reviewer. This personal view in regard to “long standing editorial issues” may have been of some value if it had been regularly communicated and discussed. In reality, for the last four years we have had only few meetings on editorial issues, mostly at Program Reviews. In fact, year after year my supervisors have failed to discuss, to instruct, and give directives, on editorial issues. Only now, as they depart from Broadcasting Management, have Don Jensen and Jeff Trimble decided to “speak out”.

It is clear to me that the reviewer's use of the phrase “year after year” is an attempt to create an illusion of a long-standing problem with my performance when, in fact, there has been none. It is also clear that this language constitutes an effort to fabricate the appearance of a "pattern" of performance. The aim is to build a wholly unfounded CASE to be used in future actions against me.

I would like to point out that year after year I have implemented all recommendations made by my supervisors at Program Reviews and Performance Reviews. These recommendations were made once every 12 months. There appeared to be a direct correlation between the recommendations and a declining number of listeners. In 1998 our listener rate was almost 36%. After four years of following the recommendations of my supervisors the Azerbaijani Service rate has reached14%. This significant decline in the number of listeners can be attributed to efforts to greatly reduce analysis and commentary. Prior to these imposed changes, analysis and commentary contributed to attracting greater audiences.

At the same time, my supervisors created and fostered an inhospitable work environment in which it was very difficult to maintain productivity and morale. Every opportunity was sought to undermine the authority of my position in the Service, and keep me under constant pressure. Supervisors should direct and assist, not undermine and subvert the dedicated efforts of those whom they supervise.

I have implemented all the instructions given me by my supervisors. I have reduced the number of commentaries significantly during the 12 months of the Review period. Even the Intermedia Review Panel has documented that for the last 12 months I was rarely heard on the air. But the reviewer has nothing to say about this in his summary comments in my Performance Review. As of September 3, 2002 I have completely stopped writing commentaries and analysis.

3. There is a very serious inconsistency in my Performance rating. For example, the reviewer gave me "VG" in "Sense of Mission", but rated me "NI" in "Professional Standards" and "Judgment". How can a Director with a very good "sense of mission" have a bad "judgment" or "low professional standard". At the same time, a Director rated "VG" in administration with the note: "Cooperative and efficient". I cannot be accused of not cooperating in editorial issues. I have always cooperated. There has been no occasion when I have refused to cooperate on editorial issues.

4. The reviewer has given me 3 Very Goods, 6 Goods, and 2 Needs Improvement. But the overall rating is NEEDS IMPROVEMENT. The Internal/External Panel Review conducted among our listeners in May by Intermedia has rated professional content, journalistic quality, objectivity, balance, quality of commentaries and analysis in our programs as Very Good/Excellent. There is a clear discrepancy here and it is the result of biased judgment. This is no way to conduct an appraisal of performance. It seems to me that “politics” played a major role in appraisal of my performance. It is unfair, certainly unprofessional, and I refuse to accept this biased appraisal.

I am ready to cooperate with anyone in Broadcasting Management with the purpose of refining and improving our programs. I have demonstrated my dedication to the highest standards of professionalism throughout my many years of work at RFE/RL. In all these many years I have always assumed others at RFE/RL shared this dedication. My experience of these past four years compels me to note that there are some at RFE/RL from whom I cannot expect this dedication to professionalism.

I urge you to take action to correct my Performance Rating and bring it in
accordance with my REAL performance.

Sincerely,
Mirza Michaeli,
Director,
Azerbaijani Language Service

AZERBAIJAN: MOSQUES CLOSE IN BAKU, "CAPITAL OF ISLAMIC CULTURE"

Mirza Khazar — Thu, 28 May 2009 05:56:18 -0400

Mina Muradova: 5/27/09 EURASIA INSIGHT

Baku may have the designation of this year's "Capital of Islamic Culture," but a recent series of mosque closures and fresh requirements for registration of religious organizations has prompted concern about how Azerbaijan is living up to its title.

Over the past month, police have closed or torn down mosques in various Baku neighborhoods for reasons ranging from electricity repairs to alleged construction irregularities. The Organisation of the Islamic Conference, the 57-member intergovernmental body that designated Baku as its "Capital of Islamic Culture" for 2009, has not commented on the government's actions.

The latest mosque to close, Ilahiyyat, located on the campus of Baku State University, was shut down "temporarily" for reportedly never having registered with the State Committee for Work with Religious Organizations (SCWRO). Prior to the closure, university administrators complained that classes were regularly disrupted by the azaan, or call to prayer, and the subsequent arrival of thousands of worshippers.

The mosque was constructed in 1992 by the Presidency of Religious Affairs of the Republic of Turkey, an organization that builds mosques in post-Soviet Turkic countries. Muzeffer Shahin, religious affairs advisor at the Turkish Embassy in Baku, disputed Azerbaijani authorities' contention that the mosque had been constructed "illegally," the APA news service reported.

Another Turkish-built mosque, Shahidlyar, next to Martyrs' Lane, was shut down for "repairs" on the eve of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's May 13 visit to Baku. The abrupt action, taken amid rising bilateral tension over Turkey's creeping rapprochement with Armenia, prompted some Baku residents to assume the decision was a tit-for-tat expression of displeasure over Ankara's political dialogue with Yerevan. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. The State Committee on Work with Religious Organizations has since repeated that the mosque will reopen once repairs are complete.

Officials expressed similar concerns for building methods and property regulations to justify the destruction of two mosques. On May 11, authorities tore down a mosque located on the Oily Rocks, an offshore drilling settlement; the reason was to ensure worshippers' "safety" since the mosque allegedly had been constructed "on clay." And on April 26, police used bulldozers to tear down the Prophet Mohammed mosque; its imam was accused of having constructed the house of worship on land that belongs to the State Economic University.

Ilgar Ibrahimoglu, an imam and head of the Centre for Protection of Freedom of Conscience and Faith, asserts that Azerbaijani leaders are suffering from what he described as "mosque-phobia."

"A state body that is supposed to protect the rights of believers instead is imposing a police regime," Ibrahimoglu contended. "It is inconceivable to call God's home an 'illegal' place."

Ibrahimoglu has an extended history as a government critic. In 2004, authorities evicted worshipers from the Juma mosque in Baku, where he was the imam. His supporters at the time said the government's action was politically motivated. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

The start of authorities' "mosque-phobia" can be traced to August 2008, when an explosion at Baku's Abu-Bakur mosque killed two worshippers and injured another 19, Ibrahimoglu said. The mosque was shut down, and city police subsequently stepped up their presence around other mosques, particularly during Friday prayers.

Gunduz Ismaylov, chief of the SCWRO's department responsible for interacting with religious organizations, rejected Ibrahimoglu's allegations. "There is no reason to politicize the situation and create a stir around these closures," Ismaylov said. "Some of them were illegally constructed structures."

Ibrahimoglu argues that the mosque closures are part of a larger picture. Recent amendments to the 1992 Law on Freedom of Conscience, adopted by parliament on May 8, would hinder the registration of religious organizations and simplify their closures, he charged. Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has yet to sign the amendments into law.

Before registering with the SCWRA, Muslim groups now need to receive a letter of approval from the Caucasus Muslim Board, a state-associated body that appoints Muslim clerics to mosques and monitors sermons. All religious groups will have to be re-registered by September 2009 in accordance with this requirement.

Religious groups also must submit information about their founders' citizenship, residence, date of birth, religious doctrine, traditions, official duties, attitude towards family, marriage and education, as well as details about any restrictions put on their members. The group can function only at the address given for their registration. This appears to indicate that any activity outside such venues will be regarded as illegal.

Ibrahimoglu contends that the new requirements would contradict international practice. SCWRO representatives counter that the amendments were dictated by the threefold increase in the number of religious organizations functioning in Azerbaijan (534) since the committee began registering such groups in 2001. Once the current re-registration is complete, "the number of religious communities will double," argued Ismaylov.

"If a religious community's activity is in accordance with both national legislation and society's interests, why should we not register it?" he asked.

Rabiyyat Aslanova, the head of parliament's Committee on Human Rights, said that the law needs to be amended to ensure "state security" and "to prevent harmful missionary activity."

"Some religious sects that are banned in Europe are freely operating in Azerbaijan," she declared during a May 8 parliamentary session without mentioning the names of suspect groups. "We will ban the activity of groups spreading the propaganda of violence . . . [as well as those that are] against the principles of humanity and human dignity."

Ibrahimoglu rejects such arguments. "It should not be allowed to suppress freedom of conscience for the sake of state security."

http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insightb/articles/eav052709b.shtml

U.S. Attorney General Asked To Investigate Fraud at RFE/RL, BBG

Mirza Khazar — Sun, 10 May 2009 21:08:47 -0400

Information Centre
CAUCASUS – EASTERN EUROPE (ICCEE), Prague, Czech Republic
Tel. +420/724 938 783, +420/775 581 100, +420/603 317 078
Email: hakob@orer.cz

Czech news agency, CTK, and the largest national daily Dnes (Today) http://zpravy.idnes.cz/svobodna-evropa-podvadi-sve-neamericke-redaktory-stezuje-si-chorvatka-1mh-/media.asp?c=A090506_180222_media_pei published reports (in Czech) based on ICCEE information summarized below in English

for immediate release:

U.S. Attorney General Asked To Investigate Fraud at RFE/RL, BBG

(Prague, May 11, 2009) United States Attorney General Eric H. Holder is petitioned to open criminal investigation of the Prague-based Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) and its supervising Federal agency, Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) in Washington.

The petitioners, former RFE/RL employees, a Croatian citizen Snjezana Pelivan and Anna Karapetian, an Armenian, are charging BBG and the management of U.S. Congress-funded radio station with fraudulent deception intended to keep RFE/RL foreign personnel in legal vacuum without court protection in the United States and the Czech Republic.

RFE/RL broadcasts in 28 languages to 20 countries of the former Yugoslavia and Soviet Union, to Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and employs several hundred foreign citizens. Their standard employment agreements with RFE/RL in Prague, as quoted by petitioners, “are governed by the applicable laws of the United States, the laws of the District of Columbia or the policies of the Company”.

However, indicate the petitioners, the American employment, civil and human rights laws, including Federal Civil Rights Act and District of Columbia Human Rights Act, are not applicable to foreigners employed by American companies outside the United States. Thus, they cannot receive any protection in American courts. http://www.gentrylocke.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=242
This fact, the petitioners state in their request for criminal investigation, is well known to the management of RFE/RL and to BBG, “which provides worldwide personnel management policies, programs and services”, (http://www.bbg.gov/office/index.html).

RFE/RL employment policies remain unchanged after Hillary Clinton, as the Secretary of State, became in January, 2009, an ex officio member of BBG and RFE/RL Board of Directors.

While American citizens are covered by U.S. legislation and Czechs are protected by the strict national labor laws, the only regulation applicable to foreigners employed by RFE/RL, are the “policies of the Company”, which permit termination of employment “at any time for any reason”. This rule is absent in the standard employment agreements, which RFE/RL gives to its foreign employees for signature. Company policies are, at the time of hire, unknown to them and not explained by RFE/RL management. The petitioners qualify RFE/RL actions as fraudulent deception aimed at discrimination based on nationality.

Czech Parliament is due to consider an inquiry (interpellation) concerning RFE/RL personnel policies and practices in the Czech Republic. (http://www.psp.cz/sqw/tisky.sqw?STR=4&O=5&PT=K&N=4&F=I&D=6,17&RA=20)

RFE/RL terminated employment agreements with Snjezana Pelivan and Anna Karapetian at different times but by the same mode: without prior warning and without any reason stated orally or in writing. Both, after years of employment with RFE/R and invariably positive performance reviews, were never disciplined for any transgressions.

Czech courts rejected Pelivan’s and Karapetian’s wrongful termination complaints on the ground that their work relations with RFE/RL are governed not by the Czech but by American laws and RFE/RL policies. As a consequence, foreign employees of RFE/RL are placed in legal vacuum without any court protection whatsoever.

Karapetian’s case is still pending in the Czech Supreme Court. Recently, Czech Constitutional Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts in Pelivan’s case. She will appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg against the Czech Republic, as a host country to RFE/RL. Snjezana Pelivan will ask the Croatian government to join her antidiscrimination claim in Strasbourg. Anna Karapetian plans to obtain support from Armenian government in accordance with European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

According to RFE/RL Mission Statement, “RFE/RL mission is to promote democratic values and institutions… RFE/RL strengthens civil societies by projecting democratic values… RFE/RL provides a model for local media…” http://www.rferl.org/info/mission/169.html

Petitioning the U.S. Attorney General to investigate BBG and RFE/RL discriminative employment policies and actions, the petitioners write:

“ Due to fraudulent deceptions, RFE/RL president now concentrates, in one person, the functions and powers of a breadgiver, an interrogator, a prosecutor, a judge in his own court without defense, an executor of his own judgement, which is final and must not be motivated. And it is not in Guantanamo, which presently is being dismantled as American legal and political shame.

Your investigation will help to dismantle at RFE/RL in Prague the remaining preserve of “no rights to foreigners”, evidently overlooked till now by the present Washington administration.”

Copies of the Petition are submitted to White House, U.S. Department of State, and relevant Senate and Congressional committees.

In case of interest, request the text of Petition.

ICCEE is a non-governmental non-profit organization established in Prague in 1999.

###

"Lidove noviny": Czech Sovereignty Ends at RFE/RL

Mirza Khazar — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 08:43:37 -0400

Prague newspaper “Lidove noviny” published on April 1, 2009, the following article (translated from Czech):

Lev Roitman

On Saturday, Prague expects the visit by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. By virtue of her position, the Secretary is also a member of the Board of Directors of the Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), which on Prague Vaclavske namesti occupies the building of former Czechoslovak National Assembly.

In that building, in July of 1995, marking the occasion of American Independence Day and recent RFE/RL relocation from Munich to Prague, Hillary Clinton called for the global “alliance of democratic values”. Ten years later, in the same building resonated the words of Vaclav Havel who actively contributed to the RFE/RL transfer to Prague: “I take pride in the fact that previously Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty was broadcasting to Prague and now, from Prague, it brings a free word to the world”. Hillary Clinton’s and Vaclav Havel’s speeches were translated into all RFE/RL broadcasting languages. In Armenian translated Anna Karapetian. She does not work for RFE/RL anymore.

After twelve years of irreproachable service, Anna Karapetian, a journalist with twenty years of professional experience, mother of three minors, was fired. Her employment was terminated without any warning, without any reason given to her, without even severance payment, for she refused to sign a consent with such a termination and give up her right to appeal to court. Such “philosophy of employment-at-will”, which directly violates Czech labor laws, is an integral part of the official RFE/RL “Policy Manual” in the Czech Republic.

Arbitrary Terminations at RFE/RL

Czech RFE/RL employees, at the insistence of the Czech trade unions, are protected by Czech labor laws. Americans are covered by American legislation. By decision of RFE/RL management, Czech labor legislation does not apply to its employees from third countries. Also, as to foreigners working for American employer outside the United States, American laws do not apply to them either. What is applicable is RFE/RL “philosophy” only. At the same time, nationals of those 20 states to which the radio station brings in 28 languages the “free word”, constitute the bulk of all foreign RFE/RL personnel in Prague.

Anna Karapetian, whose case is to be considered by the Czech Supreme Court, by far is not the only victim of RFE/RL “philosophy”. On March 11th, Czech news agency CTK reported that Snjezana Pelivan, a Croatian citizen fired in the same “philosophical” mode as was Anna Karapetian, requested Czech Constitutional Court to summon Mrs. Clinton. Her testimony should clarify whether discriminative actions of U.S. Congress-financed RFE/RL are “consistent with the broad foreign policy objectives of the United States “ and “promote respect for human rights” as prescribed by the United States International Broadcasting Act.

However, how could it happen that legal sovereignty of the Czech Republic ends on Vaclavske namesti? Paradox as it is, but Czech Republic still has some legal regulations that did not change from the communist times, allowing foreign organizations to use foreign labor laws as long as it is not in contradiction to fundamental principles of the “Czechoslovak Socialist Republic”. What a cynical irony: a law dating back to 1963, which once allowed the Soviet Union operate unhindered at the territory of Czechoslovakia, presently is abused by American management of RFE/RL for discrimination of its employees. Lower Czech courts, bound by legislation of communist Czechoslovakia, are unable to protect foreigners employed by RFE/RL against arbitrary terminations.

To certain extent, the forthcoming visit by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to Prague is designed to demonstrate that Obama’s declared intention to “show the world the best face of America” was not just a campaign rattle. Indeed, there are manifold indications that well-informed and sensitive Hillary Clinton’s State Department, in contrast to RFE/RL management inherited from the previous Washington administration, clearly understands that the dignity, moral influence and political reputation of RFE/RL are safeguarded by public sympathy and not by the use of legal loopholes and gimmicks.

There is no more suitable time and place for Czech politicians – the president, prime minister, foreign minister, to raise the question of disgraceful to the Czech Republic and the United States RFE/RL policies and actions than during Prague visit by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. And that in the interests of Czech sovereignty and American reputation.

Lev Roitman, journalist, retired in 2005 as RFE/RL Senior Commentator after thirty years of work in New York, Munich and Prague

Source in Czech: http://www.lidovky.cz/suverenita-konci-na-vaclavaku-dkq-/ln_noviny.asp?c=A090401_000051_ln_noviny_sko&klic=230839&mes=090401_0

ICCEE: Czech Constitutional Court Is Asked to Question Hillary Clinton on RFE/RL / Sacked Croatian journalist feels harmed by RFE (CTK)

Mirza Khazar — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 01:20:59 -0400

Information Centre
CAUCASUS – EASTERN EUROPE (ICCEE),
Tel. +420/724 938 783, +420/775 581 100, +420/603 317 078
Email: pelivans@volny.cz ; hakob@orer.cz

For immediate release

Czech Constitutional Court Is Asked to Question Hillary Clinton on RFE/RL

(Prague, 12 March 2009) – Hillary Clinton who as the serving Secretary of State sits on the Board of Directors of the Prague-based Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), might be asked to testify before Constitutional Court on employment practices of that U.S.-funded radio station in Czech Republic.

Petition to question Hillary Clinton is submitted to Constitutional Court by Snjezana Pelivan, Croatian citizen suing in that court RFE/RL for infringement of her labor and human rights resulting from violation by RFE/RL the legislative sovereignty of the Czech Republic, its host country.

Armenian citizen Anna Karapetyan brought similar charges against RFE/RL earlier this month in the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs, former employees of RFE/RL, which is subordinate to Broadcasting Board of Governors in Washington, a governmental agency overseeing all U.S. nonmilitary international broadcasting, are suing RFE/RL for practicing national discrimination in labor relations with its non-American and non-Czech employees.

Broadcasting in 28 languages, the nationals of 20 RFE/RL target countries – Afghanistan, Armenia, fm. Yugoslavia, Iraq, Iran, Russia, states of Central Asia, etc. – compose the bulk of RFE/RL total personnel in the Czech Republic. Their uniform employment agreements with RFE/RL effectively deny them any protection of U.S. and Czech labor laws. Official Policies of RFE/RL allow unmotivated terminations of such foreign employees at any time for any reason without informing them why the employment was terminated.

Czech newspaper Lidove noviny, Prague, wrote in editorial commentary “Equality With Precondition. Practice of Free Europe Contradicts Its Ideals”: “Employees are divided in three castes… That situation, as it seems, is brutally abused by the management of the radio station. With foreign employees from the third caste the propagators of democracy deal as colonial power with rightless aborigines.”

Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) is appointed by the President “with the advice and consent of the Senate”. Secretary of State is BBG member ex officio. By law, BBG collectively serves as RFE/RL Board of Directors and “makes all major policy determinations governing the operations of RFE/RL.” Also by law, “United States international broadcasting … shall be consistent with the broad foreign policy objectives of the United States.”

Petitioning Constitutional Court to question Hillary Clinton, Snjezana Pelivan notes that after Mrs. Clinton became on January 22, 2009, the member of BBG and RFE/RL Board of Directors, RFE/RL’s “discriminative to foreigners Policies and practices remain the same”. Hillary Clinton’s testimony should clarify if RFE/RL Policies, “which violate labor (employment protection) and human rights (national equality) of RFE/RL foreign workers in the Czech Republic and, thus, contradict Czech labor laws, are dictated by the ‘broad foreign policy objectives of the United States’.”

Commenting on lawsuits against RFE/RL in Czech Republic, an Armenian daily AZG (“People”), Yerevan, wrote recently: “These legal cases are a stamp of shame, a stigma on the history of well-respected Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which has supported democracy for decades.” The article was titled “Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) Betrays Its Ideals” http://www.azg.am/EN/2009021204

President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are expected on April 4th and 5th to be in Czech Republic holding presently rotating presidency in the Council of European Union.

# # #

ICCEE is a non-governmental non-profit organization established in Prague in 1999. ICCEE is the publisher of the main Armenian magazine in Europe, Orer (Days).

**********************************************************************************

The CTK News Agency also reported on this issue in the following News Item:

Sacked Croatian journalist feels harmed by RFE
ČTK /

12 March 2009

(NOTE: The CTK (Mr. Karel Petrak) granted us permission to re-print this news story)

Brno, March 11 (CTK) - Croatian journalist Snjezana Pelivan, dismissed by the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), demands that the Czech Constitutional Court (US) question U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the proceedings over her complaint, Pelivan's lawyer David Uhlir told CTK Wednesday.

Pelivan worked in the Prague RFE/RL office and she was given a notice in 2004 that was, according to her account, not properly explained, Uhlir said.

The U.S.-sponsored radio station treated its staff from the third countries in a discriminatory and anti-constitutional way, Uhlir said.

Before the Czech Republic joined the EU, the RFE/RL staffers who were not from the USA or the Czech Republic were insufficiently protected against immediate and unsubstantiated sackings, Uhlir said.

This was the case of not only Pelivan, but also of Armenian Anna Karapetyan, another client of Uhlir, the lawyer said.

Uhlir said the foreigners who work in the Czech Republic for foreign companies deserved the same protection as other employees.

Uhlir said that Clinton's testimony before the Czech Constitutional Court was rather hypothetical. In her position, she enjoys diplomatic immunity and she can refuse the testimony, Uhlir said.

Pelivan said that Clinton might make it clear in the court whether the approach to the employees was dictated by the aim of the general U.S. foreign policy.

Pelivan is demanding the cancellation of earlier verdicts that rejected her complaint.

According to the complaint, there were three groups of employees in the Czech RFE/RL office. The first consisted of U.S. nationals subjected to the U.S. law. The second included Czech citizens with whom the radio station concluded work contracts according to the Czech law and who were protected by the Labour Code.

The third group consisted of foreigners from the third countries, who were, according to Pelivan, disadvantaged.

The RFE/RL broadcasts to 20 countries. It has its headquarters in Prague.

Source: http://praguemonitor.com/2009/03/12/sacked-croatian-journalist-feels-harmed-rfe

U.S. State Department: Azerbaijan is primarily a source and transit country for men, women, and children trafficked for the purposes of sexual exploitation and forced labor

Mirza Khazar — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 03:30:00 -0400

U.S. State Department Report On Trafficking in Persons Report Released by the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons June 5, 2006 AZERBAIJAN Azerbaijan is primarily a source and transit country for men, women, and children trafficked for the purposes of sexual exploitation and forced labor. Most Azerbaijani victims were trafficked for sexual exploitation to Turkey and the Persian Gulf. Other destinations include Russia, Germany, and Greece. Reports of internal trafficking also continued, as did reports of men trafficked to Turkey and Russia for forced labor. The Government of Azerbaijan does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking; however, it is making significant efforts to do so. The government undertook important steps to prevent and combat trafficking during the reporting period. In 2005, the government passed anti-trafficking legislation, appointed a new national anti-trafficking coordinator, fully vetted the staff of an anti-trafficking police unit, nearly completed renovations of a trafficking shelter, and created two new trafficking hotlines. The government should take immediate and tangible steps to improve victim rehabilitation by opening, adequately staffing, and fully funding its shelter for trafficking victims. It should also implement a nation-wide victim referral mechanism so that law enforcement personnel improve identification and protection of trafficking victims. Prosecution In 2005, the Government of Azerbaijan adopted its Law on the Fight Against Trafficking in Persons and adopted corresponding amendments to the criminal code. The law covers trafficking for both forced labor and sexual exploitation and carries a maximum penalty of 10 to 12 years. Due to the late passage of the criminal code amendments, however, the government continued to use older trafficking-related laws to prosecute traffickers in 2005. During the reporting period, the government opened 160 trafficking investigations and prosecuted 153 cases, resulting in 93 convictions. By the end of the reporting period, 37 traffickers were in prison. The government gave fines to 26 convicted traffickers and gave suspended sentences to 10 convicted traffickers in 2005. During the reporting period, the government completed a thorough vetting process, including conducting exams and background investigations, for its anti-trafficking police unit to ensure the unit meets international standards. The Ministry of Interior worked with customs and border officials to monitor and identify potential trafficking victims at airports, seaports, and land crossings and in January 2006 announced the disruption of a transnational trafficking ring. The Azerbaijani Government cooperated with U.S. counterparts to provide critical information for the prosecution of a U.S. trafficking case involving Azerbaijani victims in 2005. Reports of border guards and law enforcement officials receiving bribes to facilitate trafficking continued. The government established an anti-corruption commission last year to address pervasive corruption. Protection The Government of Azerbaijan continued to provide an inadequate level of assistance and support to victims in 2005. During the reporting period, the government failed to develop or implement a formal screening and referral mechanism to identify and assist victims. Although officials informally referred victims to state healthcare facilities, these facilities lack the capacity to provide the required specialized treatment or information for victims of trafficking. Some police referred victims to NGOs; however, a lack of adequate shelters in Azerbaijan forced NGO workers to use their own homes to shelter victims. The government made significant progress constructing and renovating a new trafficking shelter during the reporting period; the shelter is expected to open in spring 2006. Prevention The Government of Azerbaijan established two nation-wide trafficking hotlines in 2005. During the reporting period, the government conducted joint seminars with NGOs on trafficking throughout Azerbaijan, demonstrating increased interaction with civil society on trafficking. The State Committee on Women, Children and Families incorporated trafficking prevention into its education and trainings that targeted women from all sectors of society. The anti-trafficking coordinator led the government's inter-agency task force in coordinating communication among agencies. (source: http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2006/65988.htm)

Azerbaijan: Journalists, beware

Mirza Khazar — Sat, 26 May 2007 04:39:24 -0400

A series of arrests and prison sentences for charges that include terrorism have journalists in Azerbaijan wondering if there is any sort of future for a free press.

Commentary by Karl Rahder for ISN Security Watch (25/05/07)

Increasingly bad news for freedom of expression has recently come out of Azerbaijan, the US' oil-rich ally in the Caspian Sea region, where five journalists have been sentenced to harsh prison sentences in the last few weeks in what critics say is a government campaign to stifle free speech.

Rafiq Tagi, a journalist with the independent newspaper Senet was sentenced on 3 May in Baku, the capital, to a four-year term for “inciting religious hatred,” while his editor Samir Sadagatoglu received a three-year sentence.

The prison terms and prosecution came as a result of a commentary written last November by Tagi entitled “Europe and Us,” which according to press reports compared Muslim societies such as Azerbaijan with historically Christian Europe and concluded that Islam had, on the whole, hindered social and political development.

While this sort of reflective social commentary might be the norm in the West, the outcry from some quarters in secular, Shi’ite Azerbaijan was shrill, with ultra-conservative Muslims in the village of Nadaran calling for the two men’s deaths and the public prosecutor bringing criminal charges against them.

In neighboring Iran, Grand Ayatollah Fazel Lankarani has issued a fatwa calling for the execution of Tagi and his editor, saying on his

website: http://www.lankarani.org/eng/mes/016.html

that “it is necessary for every individual who has an access to him to kill him. The person in charge of the […] newspaper, who published such thoughts and beliefs consciously and knowingly, should be dealt with in the same manner.” Another cleric who lives in the city of Tabriz has reportedly offered his house as a reward for anyone who kills the two men.
The sentence was handed down despite protests from Azerbaijan’s embattled journalistic community, a number of non-governmental organizations and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

What emerges from the trials, convictions and physical attacks over the years is an apparent pattern of coordinated assaults against freedom of speech in Azerbaijan. On 27 April, independent journalist Eynulla Fatullayev was convicted of “criminal libel” and “insult” and sentenced to 30 months in prison for allegations he purportedly made having to do with events surrounding the massacre of civilians in the Azerbaijani town of Khojaly during the 1992-1994 Nagorno-Karabakh war. Fatullayev’s original article evidently attached some blame for the tragedy to the failure of Azerbaijani military forces to protect the town. But in the furor that followed the article, Fatullayev was charged with libeling the residents of Khojaly.

Fatullayev, perhaps Azerbaijan’s best-known opposition journalist, denies having made libelous comments, but his conviction - and the physical attack on the same day against his colleague Uzeir Jafarov - reminds critics of the government of the price they may be forced to pay when they stray too far from what is acceptable, to both the government and the conservative Shi’ite establishment.

Journalism in Azerbaijan was a high-risk endeavor even before the 2005 murder of Elmar Huseynov, editor of the independent Monitor newspaper, and a friend of Fatullayev’s. It clearly remains a high-risk endeavor.

In October last year, well-known poet and opposition journalist Sakit Zahidov was convicted on charges of illegal possession and use of drugs. The charges were widely believed to be politically oriented, with the arrest coming only three days after Ali Akhmedov, the executive secretary of Azerbaijan's ruling New Azerbaijan Party, called for Zahidov’s arrest for his alleged “slanders” against government officials.

Zahidov’s brother Ganimat happens to be the chief editor of the opposition newspaper Azadlig, which has been a thorn in the side of the government for years and was ejected from its office space in 2006 along with the Turan News Agency and the Popular Front Party.

Last week, Rovshan Karbili - the editor of opposition newspaper Mukhalifat - and reporter Yashar Agazade were sentenced to two and a half years in prison (identical to Fatulayev’s sentence) for libel in connection with an article that accused Jalal Aliyev, an uncle of President Ilham Aliyev, of corruption.

OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Miklos Haraszti expressed “shock” over the sentence in a statement to the press.

"Azerbaijan's relentless persecution of journalists annihilates the security of journalism, a major OSCE commitment," said Haraszti.

The conviction and sentence came less than three weeks after a meeting between Haraszti and President Aliyev, during which the OSCE representative asked the president to halt the persecution of journalists, reminding Aliyev that "Azerbaijan today is the country in the OSCE region with the highest number of journalists in prison […]"

The US embassy in Baku issued a statement after the most recent convictions, saying that the imprisonment of seven journalists in toto in Azerbaijan "is part of a trend of pressure - including violence, threats and libel cases - that runs counter to Azerbaijan's stated commitment to media freedom. Journalists in democratic countries are not imprisoned for exercising freedom of expression. We urge the Azerbaijani government to remove libel from the criminal code and to take steps to create the necessary conditions for media freedom."
In 2005, Freedom House, a non-governmental organization that monitors democratic development, downgraded Azerbaijan from "partly free" to "not free."

Finally, on 21 May, authorities closed down the offices of Fatullayev’s newspaper Real Azerbaijan as well as another opposition paper, the Azerbaijan Daily, two of the most popular newspapers in the country. While the government says the closure was due to maintenance and fire safety issues, no other tenants in the building were evicted. And as of 23 May, Fatullayev faces additional charges of "making a terrorist threat," a development that could extend his prison term for many years.

The independent media are being all but shut down in Azerbaijan. The terrorism charges against Fatullayev and the stiff sentences handed out for a harmless editorial and criticism of a member of the president’s family send a message to the press that the confines for freedom of expression in Azerbaijan are becoming more circumscribed.

It is hard to imagine that the remaining opposition newspapers such as Azadlig will tone down their editorial coverage, although independent television network ANS is perceived by many to have done just that since it was allowed back on the air last year after a brief closure. The atmosphere in the country has certainly chilled in over the course of the past couple of weeks, and the government now will have to decide if it has communicated the new rules with sufficient clarity or whether more arrests are in the offing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Karl Rahder has taught US foreign policy and international history at colleges and universities in the US and Azerbaijan. In 2004, he was a Visiting Faculty Fellow in Azerbaijan with the Civic Education Project, an academic program funded by the Soros Foundations and the US Department of State. He is currently based in Chicago.
The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author only, not the International Relations and Security Network (ISN).

URL: http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=17659

Azerbaijan: Continuous harassment threatens existence of independent media

Mirza Khazar — Thu, 24 May 2007 07:31:47 -0400

VIENNA, 22 May 2007 -- The OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, Miklos Haraszti, expressed concern today over the eviction of the country's two main independent newspapers from their premises, and new procedures against their imprisoned editor, Eynulla Fatullayev. On 20 May, the Ministry for Emergency Situations forcibly evacuated the staff of Realniy Azerbaijan and Gundalik Azarbaycan from their offices. The newspapers have not been printed since the eviction and it is unclear when their publication will resume. "The eviction paralyses Azerbaijan's largest and most popular newspapers, in a clear attempt to fully silence them. This is part of an ongoing campaign to do away with independent journalism," said Haraszti. He noted the evacuating authorities cited alleged danger from "structural deficiencies" in the 13-storey building, but had evicted no other tenants. "I have also received worrying news that since the eviction the
newspapers' servers and archives are being searched by national security personnel. All this represents an openly oppressive stance, going beyond the previously seen discriminatory treatment of independent media," Haraszti added. Reportedly, the search warrants were based on a new criminal case against the papers' founder and editor, Eynulla Fatullayev, already convicted last month for 'defamation of a village and of the army'. "I call on the authorities to stop persecuting the remaining free press in Azerbaijan and ensure that Realniy Azerbaijan and Gundalik Azarbaycan can resume their work," said Haraszti. Over the last months, the OSCE Representative has several times expressed his concern over the deteriorating state of freedom of the media in Azerbaijan, including during a visit to Baku where he met President Ilham Aliyev. Seven Azerbaijani journalists are presently in jail, most of them after criminal procedures for libel.

OSCE Press release

-- HREA - http://www.hrea.org Human Rights Education Associates (HREA) is an international non-governmental organisation that supports human rights learning; the training of activists and professionals; the development of educational materials and programming; and community-building through on-line technologies.

Freedom House: 2006 Countr Report, Azerbaycan is "not free"

Mirza Khazar — Tue, 01 May 2007 23:47:59 -0400

Flawed parliamentary elections in November 2005 capped a year of unfulfilled reform ambitions in Azerbaijan. The elections resulted in the opposition's securing only a small fraction of the 125 seats in the Milli Majlis (National Assembly), with a substantial majority going to the ruling Yeni Azerbaijan Party (YAP) and its allies. The run-up to the election included claims by the regime of an attempted coup, which resulted in the detention and arrest of several former ministers.

After having been controlled by the Ottoman Empire since the seventeenth century, Azerbaijan enjoyed a brief period of independence from 1918 to 1920. It entered the Soviet Union in 1922 as part of the Transcaucasian Soviet Federal Republic, becoming a separate Soviet republic in 1936. Following a referendum in 1991, Azerbaijan declared independence from the disintegrating Soviet Union.

In 1992, Abulfaz Elchibey, leader of the nationalist opposition Azerbaijan Popular Front, was elected president in a generally free and fair vote. A military coup one year later ousted him from power and installed the former first secretary of the Azerbaijan Communist Party, Heydar Aliyev, in his place. In the October 1993 presidential elections, Aliyev was credited with receiving nearly 99 percent of the vote. Azerbaijan's first post-Soviet parliamentary elections, held in November 1995, saw five leading opposition parties and some 600 independent candidates barred from the vote in which Aliyev's Yeni Azerbaijan Party (YAP) won the most seats. In October 1998, Aliyev was chosen president with more than 70 percent of the vote in an election marred by irregularities.

In November 2000, the ruling YAP captured the majority of seats in the parliamentary election. The Azerbaijan Popular Front and the Communist Party came in a distant second and third, respectively. International monitors from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe cited widespread electoral fraud, including the stuffing of ballot boxes and a strong pro-gov-ernment bias in state-run media. Despite widespread criticism of the elections, the Council of Europe approved Azerbaijan's application for membership just days after the vote, a decision widely criticized by international human rights groups.

An August 2002 national referendum led to the adoption of a series of constitutional amendments, some of which critics charged would further strengthen the ruling party's grip on power. One controversial amendment stipulated that the prime minister become president if the head of state resigns or is incapacitated. Critics charged that the aging and ailing Aliyev would appoint his son, Ilham, prime minister in order to facilitate a transfer of power within the Aliyev family. Opposition groups and the OSCE charged that the referendum was marred by fraud, including ballot-box stuffing, intimidation of election monitors and officials, and inflated voter-turn-out figures of nearly 90 percent.

In the months preceding the October 2003 presidential election, the political environment was marked by uncertainty over Heydar Aliyev's declining health and its implications for his reelection bid. Aliyev collapsed during a live television broadcast in April and left Azerbaijan that summer to receive medical treatment abroad. At the same time, government officials continued to deny that his health problems were serious, and he remained the official YAP candidate for the presidential election. In June, Aliyev's son, Ilham, was officially nominated as a presidential candidate, and the elder Aliev withdrew his candidacy in favor of his son's on October 2, 2003.

In the 2003 presidential ballot, final election results released by the Central Election Commission showed Ilham Aliyev defeating seven challengers with nearly 77 percent of the vote. His closest rival, opposition Musavat Party leader Isa Gambar received only 14 percent of the vote, while six other candidates received less than 4 percent each. According to OSCE observers, the election was marred by widespread fraud. During violent clashes between security forces and demonstrators in Baku in October, in which at least one person was reportedly killed and several hundred were injured, the authorities unleashed a crackdown against the opposition in which more than 600 people were detained. Among those arrested were opposition party leaders and supporters who had not been directly involved in the preceding days' violence, along with many election officials who refused to certify fraudulent election results. Heydar Aliyev, who had long dominated the country's political life, died in December 2003.

Over the course of 2004 and 2005, Ilham Aliyev sought to consolidate his position among the country's ruling elite. In the immediate run-up to the November 2005 parliamentary election, a number of former and current senior officials were detained in response to what the regime claimed was a coup attempt. However, observers maintained that the detentions were a move on the president's part to further consolidate control over the country's political elites.

Less than half of all registered voters cast ballots in the legislative poll, the lowest voter turnout in a decade. More than 2,000 candidates registered for the 125 constituencies. However, about a fourth of these candidates ultimately withdrew, in some cases because of intimidation, leaving 1,550 to take part on election day. The elections resulted in the opposition's capturing 10 of 125 seats in the Milli Majlis (National Assembly), with a substantial majority going to the ruling YAP and its allies. Seats in four districts were invalidated by the authorities and were scheduled to be rerun after the end date of the coverage period of this report. The results of the elections were contested by the opposition, which organized a number of rallies in the country's capital.

A settlement for the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, over which Armenia and Azerbaijan fought in the early 1990s, was not achieved, although high-level talks provided a glimmer of hope that a process could be in the works to ameliorate the tense state of affairs. The region, which is formally part of Azerbaijan, is now predominantly ethnically Armenian and effectively under Armenian control.

Political Rights and Civil Liberties

Citizens of Azerbaijan cannot change their government democratically. The country's constitution provides for a strong presidency and the country's parliament, the 125 member Milli Majlis, exercises little independence from the executive branch. Presidential and parliamentary terms are five years.

The 1993, 1998, and 2003 presidential and 1995 and 2000 parliamentary elections were considered neither free nor fair by international observers. The 2005 parliamentary elections were likewise afflicted by extensive irregularities. The OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights cited among the elections' shortcomings "interference of local authorities, disproportionate use of force to thwart rallies, arbitrary detentions, restrictive interpretations of campaign provisions and an unbalanced composition of election commissions." President Ilham Aliev issued two decrees, in May and October 2005, directing the administration of free and fair elections; these decrees effectively went unheeded.

Corruption is deeply entrenched throughout society, with government officials rarely held accountable for engaging in corrupt practices. The lack of judicial and parliamentary independence from the executive, among other institutional obstacles, creates an environment that enables corruption. Azerbaijan was ranked 137 out of 159 countries surveyed in Transparency International's 2005 Corruption Perceptions Index.

While Azerbaijan's constitution guarantees freedom of speech and the press, the authorities use a variety of tools to intimidate the press. Journalists are subject to physical harassment and even risk death. In March 2005, Elmar Huseinov, editor of the opposition magazine Monitor, was shot to death in the lobby of his apartment building in Baku. The broadcast media are the main source of information in the country. Of the 16 television stations, 4 broadcast to a national audience; all 4 of these have clear or likely links to the regime. Independent and opposition papers struggle financially in the face of low circulation, limited advertising revenues, and heavy fines or imprisonment of their staff. State businesses rarely if ever advertise in opposition newspapers. While there is some pluralism in the print media, it is irrelevant to the extent that newspapers have relatively low print runs, are not distributed regularly in rural areas, and are frequently too expensive for many people to purchase on a regular basis.

A noteworthy development in 2005 was the unveiling of Azerbaijan's first public service broadcasting channel, which began operations in August. Following the flawed presidential election in 2003, the Council of Europe, of which Azerbaijan is a member, adopted a resolution demanding that the government of Azerbaijan immediately implement a series of measures that included the creation of public service television to allow political parties to better communicate with the country's citizens. The Council of Europe for months exhorted the authorities in Baku to establish a genuinely independent public broadcasting channel, but the regime was slow in implementing the directive. The channel's creation just weeks in advance of the November 2005 election minimized its impact on the election process. The opposition was afforded some television airtime during the election campaign, but overall news coverage was slanted toward the ruling YAP and its candidates.

The government restricts some religious activities of members of "nontraditional" minority religious groups through burdensome registration requirements and interference in the importation and distribution of printed religious materials. Islam, Russian Orthodoxy, and Judaism are considered traditional religions, and their members can generally worship freely.

The government generally does not restrict academic freedom. However, some faculty and students have experienced political pressure. After the October 2003 election and in advance of the 2005 parliamentary poll, some professors and teachers said they were dismissed because of their membership in opposition parties.

The government often restricts freedom of assembly, especially for political parties critical of the government. Registration with the Ministry of Justice is required for a nongovernmental organization (NGO) to function as a legal entity, and the registration process has been described as cumbersome and nontransparent. A week before the 2005 parliamentary elections, Azerbaijan lifted a ban on NGOs receiving more than 30 percent of their funding from foreign sources to serve as election monitors. Although the law permits the formation of trade unions and the right to strike, the majority of trade unions remain closely affiliated with the government and most major industries are state owned.

The judiciary is corrupt, inefficient, and subservient to the executive branch. Arbitrary arrest and detention are common, particularly for members of the political opposition. Detainees are often held for long periods before trial, and their access to lawyers is restricted. Police abuse of suspects during arrest and interrogation reportedly remains commonplace, with torture sometimes used to extract confessions. Prison conditions are reportedly severe, with many inmates suffering from overcrowding and inadequate medical care.

Some members of ethnic minority groups, including the small Armenian population, have complained of discrimination in areas including education, employment, and housing. Hundreds of thousands of ethnic Azeris who fled the war in Nagorno-Karabakh have been prevented by the Armenian government from returning to their homes and remain in Azerbaijan, often living in dreadful conditions.

Significant parts of the economy are in the hands of a corrupt elite, which severely limits equality of opportunity. Supporters of the political opposition face job discrimination, demotion, or dismissal.

Traditional societal norms and poor economic conditions restrict women's professional roles. Domestic violence is a problem, and there are no laws regarding spousal abuse. In 2004, Azerbaijan adopted a new national program to combat human trafficking. According to the U.S. State Department's annual 2005 report on human trafficking, Azerbaijan is both a country of origin and a transit point for the trafficking of women for prostitution.

(www.freedomhouse.org)