THE REACTION IN LEBANON

"There are less restrictive, and more democratic, means of controlling the audiovisual media in Lebanon. But Hariri is schooled in the Saudi way of doing politics and does not tolerate criticism."

-Lebanese journalist, October 1996.

The cabinet's decisions on September 17, 1996, generated an outpouring of public criticism in Lebanon. Many Lebanese interviewed by Human Rights Watch, including station owners and critics of the Hariri government, acknowledged that there was a need to reorganize and regulate the broadcast media. They recognized the authority of the state to regulate broadcasting through a licensing system, but stressed that freedom of expression, including expression of a diversity of political opinions, should not be sacrificed in the process. They objected strenuously to the fact that the sole decisionmaking power to license television and radio stations rested with the Hariri cabinet, without the oversight of any independent regulatory agency.

The chairman of one independent television station told Human Rights Watch that the broadcasting law was being used to "muzzle the opposition," and that "this was its political goal."45 One of the owners of another unlicensed station charged that the government's goal was "to limit political opposition, decrease the number of stations, and monopolize the advertising market which generates millions of dollars."46 A lawsuit challenging the licensing decisions claimed that since 1993 the objective of those in power in Lebanon was "to pass a multimillion dollar deal for themselves and to silence the opposition."47 It noted that the government's reorganization and licensing, if allowed to stand, will produce enormous financial gain for the families and close associates of government officials, in the form of annual advertising revenues that their stations will receive.48

Others suggested to Human Rights Watch that the licensing decisions reflected Syrian and Saudi influence on the Hariri government. "Outside regimes are unhappy with the amount of media freedom in Lebanon and are attempting to muzzle political commentary," a lawyer and human rights activist told us. "What is being done is only in Syria's interest," said a prominent critic of the Hariri government who has consistently criticized what he termsthe Syrian "occupation" of Lebanon. A shareholder of one television station that was not licensed told Human Rights Watch that he had been advised by a Syrian intelligence operative to "go to Syria" to appeal for a license, but that he refused to do so. "Mr. Hariri wants total political control. Although he is Lebanese, his methods are very Saudi, very undemocratic," said the chairman of a radio station that was not licensed."49 A prominent Lebanese journalist agreed: "There are less restrictive, and more democratic, means of controlling the audiovisual media in Lebanon. But Hariri is schooled in the Saudi way of doing politics and does not tolerate criticism," he said in an interview with Human Rights Watch.50 Prime Minister Hariri is widely known to be particularly sensitive to criticism of his controversial multibillion-dollar development plan for Beirut and the activities of Solidere, the private real estate company that is carrying out the rebuilding plan.51

Critics have also focused on the fact that the cabinet, without any form of independent oversight, had the sole discretion to select the stations to be licensed. A complaint frequently heard by Human Rights Watch was that government officials, and the speaker of parliament, had "licensed themselves." Critics also pointed out that the NCVAM is merely an advisory body, and that it is not independent because the overwhelming majority of its members are close to the prime minister or the speaker of parliament. In addition, council members serve three-year terms but, according to Lebanese attorneys, the law does not specifically protect them from dismissal during their tenure.52

The controversy about the government's denial of licenses to long-established stations was heightened by the decision of the cabinet to license the National Broadcasting Network's television and radio stations, which were not yet established. Owners of operating stations told Human Rights Watch that they believed that their application files were subjected to closer scrutiny than those of the two stations that were not yet operating but granted licenses. "If ICN [television station] is not in compliance with the law, then how can NBN comply with the law's technical rules when it does not even exist?" asked ICN chairman Henry Sfair.53

Human Rights Watch put this question to Sami Shaar, president of the NCVAM, and he replied that Law No. 382 granted the licensed stations one year to comply with the provisions of the law and correct any deficiencies.54 Critics responded that this illustrated the inequitable nature of the law, in that it allowed for the licensing of a start-up station, providing it with a one-year grace period to comply with the law, while operating stations were not granted a similar period to bring their establishments into full compliance with every requirement of the law.

Capacity of the Airwaves Disputed

Critics of the licensing decisions also complained to Human Rights Watch that the government had underestimated the capacity of Lebanon's airwaves, seeking to keep the total number of television and radio stations to a minimum.55 They disputed the findings of the Television and Radio Regulatory Committee (TRRC),56 which in January 1996 issued a technical report that recommended the licensing of five privately owned television stations and ten privately owned FM radio stations, in addition to state-owned television and radio. The TRCC also recommended that only the state should broadcast on the AM radio band.57

Critics claimed that the TRCC report was based on political considerations, not scientific and technical factors, and maintained that the airwaves could accommodate more than six television stations if all VHF and UHF frequencies were put to use. For example, Henry Sfair, the chairman of ITN television, insisted that the technical capacity of the country's airwaves was easily two to four VHF television stations, and twelve to fourteen UHF television stations.58

Former Minister of Information Michel Samaha told Human Rights Watch that there had been discussions in parliament about the number of stations that the government should license, but that these deliberations had nothing to do with the technical capacity of airwaves. He cited his own disagreement with Prime Minister Hariri about the number of stations that should be licensed, and said that the prime minister's preference was four rather than ten television stations.59 Earlier in 1996, the news agency Reuter reported other remarks made by former minister Samaha:

He said that when he was minister, he was told to draft a report that the airwaves could take only three private television stations and state-run Télé-Liban. "They insisted I should not refer either to French experts or international organizations," Samaha said in a lecture. "When `they' could not divide up the four stations among themselves, they raised the number of stations to be authorized to six," he added.60

Prime Minister Hariri has countered such allegations by charging that the critics simply are attempting to obstruct the state's effort to regulate the media. "My views on the question of the media have been greatly distorted," he said in an interview in January 1997, and elaborated as follows:

I am all for freedom and democracy, and very truthfully so, but there are those who, during the [civil] war, set up information media well in excess of the country's technical capabilities as regards waves. We introduced a regulating law they did everything to obstruct it. Whenever we tried to implement it they raised their voices claiming that freedom was in danger. On the contrary, we want freedom. The proof is that we have not harmed anyone.61

Organizing Protests

The cabinet's licensing decisions added another issue to the agenda of groups in Lebanon that have been particularly critical of the economic and social policies of the Hariri government. In response to public protests planned and organized by a broad opposition coalition, including trade unionists through the independent General Confederation of Lebanese Workers (CGTL), authorities deployed the police and army to disperse demonstrators who attempted to take to the streets in October and November 1996.

On September 25, 1996, hundreds of people - including parliamentary deputies, politicians, trade unionists, academics, and representatives from the broadcast media - attended a "National Meeting for the Defense of Freedoms" at the Riviera Hotel in Beirut. One of the organizers told Human Rights Watch that 300 delegates had been invited, but that over 2,500 people attended. A forty-seven-member national committee was selected, with responsibility for organizing additional meetings and peaceful demonstrations. On September 30, the committee announced plans for a sit-in on October 3 outside the ministerial palace in downtown Beirut, where the cabinet meets every other week. Police did not permit the sit-in, and hundreds of protesters "briefly marched" in the capital, according to Reuter. On October 9, several hundred demonstrators again were blocked by police from another planned sit-in outside the prime minister's office. "Hundreds of armed police took up positions in the area," Reuter reported, and clashes broke out when they attempted to storm police barricades. "The protesters hit police with sticks from their banners and were clubbed by police rifle butts," the news agency said.62

Given the determination of Lebanese authorities to enforce the ban on public demonstrations, a two-day freedom of expression festival was planned for November 2-3, 1996, as an alternative to a demonstration. The festival, held in Antelias, north of Beirut, was organized by individuals and organizations, including the nongovernmental Association for the Defense of Rights and Freedoms, and sponsored by ICN and NTV. A Human Rights Watch representative attended as an observer. At the entrance to the festival was a large poster quoting Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in Arabic, French and English. Some 600 to 700 people arrived in the first hours of the festival and heard a succession of speakers - including parliamentary deputies, lawyers, and representatives from unlicensed radio and television stations - criticize the broadcasting law and express broader concerns about increasing restrictions on freedom of expression and association. Reuters estimated that over 2,500 people attended the two-day event.

Conference organizers called for transfer of the authority for licensing the audiovisual media from the cabinet to an independent body, and urged that licensed stations be monitored to ensure that they provide a diversity of opinions and time for opposing points of view. They also called for a delay in the implementation of the audiovisual media law and for stations not licensed in September 1996 to be permitted to resubmit their applications. The issue of broadcasting freedom was linked to demands in other areas as well, such as abolition of prior licensing of theprinted press, and prior censorship of public fliers, theater, arts, and cinema; cancellation of the 1993 decree prohibiting peaceful public assembly; and lifting restrictions on freedom of association.63

Following the festival, a group of ten parliamentary deputies submitted on November 12, 1996 a draft law that would postpone the shutdown of unlicensed stations until April 30, 1997, and allow them to broadcast news and political programs during this time.

On November 15, 1996, hundreds of activists from trade unions, professional associations, women's groups, and Muslim and Christian political parties, as well as media representatives and current and former members of parliament, convened again in Beirut, at the Coral Beach Hotel, for a follow-up to the Riviera Hotel meeting that was held in September. Speakers called for the licensing of the broadcast media by an independent council. Trade unionist Elias Abu Rizk, president of the General Confederation of Lebanese Workers, called for a nationwide strike and protest demonstrations on November 28, 1996 - two days before the unlicensed stations were to be closed down - and read the declaration of principles that had been formulated by participants. In addition to a range of political and economic demands, the declaration called for freedom of speech and expression, and advocated repeal of the decree against public demonstrations, support for the draft law extending the deadline for unlicensed radio and television stations to be off the air, and reevaluation of the broadcasting law.

Ban on Demonstrations Enforced

The day before the scheduled strike and demonstrations on November 28, 1996, Interior Minister Murr reminded citizens that the 1993 ban on public demonstrations was still in effect: "There is a standing decision taken by the government banning demonstrations and this decision is still valid today." He warned: "The task of the army and security forces is to maintain security in the country and they take the measures needed for this task."64 That evening, several hundred journalists and university students held a candle-light vigil outside the parliament building to mark the end of a three-day sit-in by journalists protesting the broadcasting law.65

In Beirut on the day of the strike, "[t]roops in helmets and battle gear patrolled the capital and manned dozens of checkpoints, checking identity documents and sealing off parts of the city," Reuter reported, adding that troops were on patrol in other major cities as well.66 And, according to Agence France-Presse (AFP), "[a]rmy troops and police set up barricades on roads to prevent access to the capital and other major cities."67

AFP also reported that about one hundred protesters managed to gather near UNESCO square in Beirut, the site where the demonstration was scheduled to take place, "only to be dispersed by around fifty club-wielding soldiers who chased them down the narrow alleys in the neighborhood." The news agency continued:

But the demonstration then grew to more than 1,000 people roaming the small and heavily populated alleys, fleeing anti-riot and army forces....The security forces finally charged into the crowd, beating ... with their clubs [the demonstrators], a number of passers-by and a handful of journalists.68

One AFP journalist was a victim of mistreatment by police, and witnessed security forces interfere with the work of two colleagues:

At least eight demonstrators were arrested while this AFP correspondent was clubbed on the shoulder by an anti-riot policeman, thrown violently against a police car and kicked. A Saudi television cameraman and a photographer for the Arabic-language newspaper al-Hayat had their cameras confiscated.69

The interior minister said later that security forces had exercised "discipline." He added that the government was "open to dialogue" but "not under pressure."70

The Council of State reviews draft legislation and certain categories of decrees, and provides advisory but nonbinding comments to the government. It also functions as a court of law in cases challenging government administrative decisions.