April 1997 Vol. 9, No. 1(E)

LEBANON

RESTRICTIONS ON BROADCASTING

In Whose Interest?

SUMMARY 2

RECOMMENDATIONS 4

INTRODUCTION 6

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BROADCASTING LAW 8

Restrictions on News, Political Programs, and Live Broadcasts 8

Operating Stations Denied Licenses; News and Political Programs Banned 9

THE REACTION IN LEBANON 13

Capacity of the Airwaves Disputed 15

Organizing Protests 16

Ban on Demonstrations Enforced 17

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS 18

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 21

APPENDIX A: Letter to Ambassador Riad Tabbarah from Human Rights Watch, January 13, 1997 22

APPENDIX B: Letter to Interior Minister Michel Murr from Human Rights Watch, August 7, 1996 25

APPENDIX C: Letter to Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri from Human Rights Watch, March 1, 1996 28

SUMMARY

Lebanon's airwaves had long been unregulated, with scores of unlicensed private broadcasters that ranged in political diversity from the radio station of the Lebanese Communist Party to the television station of Hizballah. One prominent Lebanese government official who requested anonymity told Human Rights Watch that the broadcasting community included fifty-two television stations and over 120 radio stations for a population of three million. "Before the [civil] war in Lebanon, we had only one official television and radio station. Then we had seventeen years of chaos. During this period, every militia and semi-militia started broadcasting," he said. Some of the stations grew to become well-established, multimillion-dollar enterprises, but all of them remained unlicensed because there were no laws or administrative mechanisms for obtaining licenses. "The war was on the streets, and now it's on the air. The [media] had to be reorganized," the official remarked.

The first step in the process of reorganization was the enactment of a broadcasting law in 1994. The law recognized, commendably, the freedom of the audiovisual media and "the pluralistic nature of the expression of ideas and opinions." It also ended the state's legal monopoly of the airwaves, and paved the way for the licensing of privately owned radio and television stations. Because the government sought to reduce the large number of existing stations,1 any licensing process was bound to be controversial. The state had to allocate limited frequency bands for radio stations and television channels among the large number of existing, competing private broadcasters. It thus was particularly important that the licensing process be equitable and transparent, with decision making power in the hands of independent regulators untainted by political interests. In addition, Human Rights Watch interprets Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Lebanon is a party, to require that the state exercise regulatory power in a manner that ensures freedom of expression for broadcasters and listening audiences alike, including the right to disseminate and receive information, ideas and opinions from a diversity of sources.

The implementation of the broadcasting law prompted sustained public protest in Lebanon. In September 1996, the cabinet (also known as the council of ministers) granted broadcasting licenses to four television stations, all of them reportedly linked directly or indirectly to leading government officials and pro-Syrian political figures. Television stations that were notably critical of government policies were not licensed. The cabinet's decision was made more controversial because one of the licensed stations, parliament speaker Nabih Berri's National Broadcasting Network (NBN), was not yet on the air. The cabinet also licensed eleven FM radio stations, but only three of the stations were authorized to broadcast news and political programs, one of them NBN radio, like its television counterpart not yet operational. No privately owned stations were licensed to broadcast on the AM radio band. Government officials defended the cabinet's decisions, stating that the licensed stations were those that had submitted the strongest applications and were the most viable financially. But Mohammed Obeid, general director of the ministry of information, conceded in an interview with The Washington Post that the selection of the stations to be licensed was, in part, a "political decision."

Critics had a different view, voicing concern that media pluralism - the dissemination of a diversity of information, ideas and opinions - was about to disappear in Lebanon.They charged that members of the pro-Syrian political establishment in Lebanon had "licensed themselves" and denied licenses to stations that were critical of the Hariri government and Syria's dominant role in Lebanese affairs. A lawsuit challenging the licensing decisions, filed with the Council of State on behalf of some stations that were not licensed, claimed that since 1993 the objective of those in power had been "to pass a multimillion-dollar deal for themselves and to silence the opposition." The lawsuit noted that families and close political associates of leading government officials would reap enormous financial gain from the annual advertising revenues of their licensed stations.

Strengthening the argument that the government was intent on stifling critical news and commentary about foreign and domestic policy was the cabinet's decision to prohibit the broadcasting of both news and "direct and indirect political programs" by the many unlicensed radio and television stations that were allowed to remain on the air, initially, until November 30, 1996,2 and the decision to permit only three of the eleven licensed FM radio stations to broadcast news and political programs. The definition of political programming is so broadly worded in a 1996 decree that it effectively excludes the stations from airing any program concerning the government's foreign or domestic policies. "Outside regimes are unhappy with the amount of media freedom in Lebanon and are attempting to muzzle political commentary," was the analysis provided to Human Rights Watch by a leading human rights activist. Some Lebanese viewed the outcome as in Syria's interests because the only stations permitted to broadcast news and political programs were not known to be critical of the government of Hafez al-Asad and the Syrian role in Lebanon. A major shareholder in one television station which 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, which he refused to do.

While it is widely acknowledged that states have the authority to regulate broadcasting through a licensing system, freedom of expression, including expression of a range of political opinions, must not be sacrificed in the process. In Lebanon, the fact that the sole decision-making power to license television and radio stations rests with the Hariri cabinet, without the oversight of any independent regulatory agency, raises serious concerns about the fairness and impartiality of the licensing process.

The Lebanese government, if it is to regulate broadcasting with a view to protect and foster freedom of expression, has a duty to regulate neutrally with respect to the political, ethnic, or religious profile of broadcasters. It also has a duty to ensure that regulations do not unnecessarily inhibit the free exchange of ideas and information, including the reporting of news, political analysis, and other programming of a political nature. If the licensing process effectively excludes independent stations, or stations with political views divergent from those of the ruling powers - creating a public perception that government officials are "licensing themselves" to the exclusion of others - then the presumption of a serious violation of the right to free expression is justified.

Human Rights Watch is concerned that the government's licensing process has had the effect of restricting media pluralism and freedom of expression. Stations that were notably critical of government policies were not licensed or, if licensed, were prohibited by law from broadcasting news and political programs. We believe that the state's licensing regime must be overhauled in order to ensure that the decision making is fair and impartial, and that the "pluralistic nature of the expression of ideas and opinions," as envisioned in Lebanon's broadcasting law and as required under international human rights law, is protected.

Other restrictions on the content of broadcasts, included in the 1994 broadcasting law and the 1996 broadcasting decree, also conflict with internationally recognized norms of free expression. Article 19(3) of the ICCPR allows restriction of expression only in limited circumstances, namely in the interest of "respect of the rights or reputations of others" or "the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public) or of public health or morals." Such restrictions must be "provided by law" and be "necessary." Human Rights Watch is aware of no persuasive justifications offered by the Lebanese government to support the restrictions on the broadcasting of news and other information about public events. In particular, the following restrictions create an unacceptable infringement on the right to free expression:

· The creation of two categories of private radio and television stations - those that may broadcast news and political programming, and those that may not - is unjustified discrimination among broadcasters, and restricts the freedom of broadcasters to impart, and listeners to receive, information about public affairs.

· Similarly, limiting the licensed stations that are permitted to air news to a thirty-minute daily broadcast is an unreasonable restriction on information dissemination, in the absence of any compelling justification by the state. The right of licensed stations to broadcast news programs at whatever length they see fit is an integral aspect of their freedom of expression.

· Other sweeping content restrictions include the ban on live broadcasts of unauthorized political gatherings and certain religious events, and the prohibition of broadcasting "any matter of commentary seeking to affect directly or indirectly the well-being of the nation's economy and finances," and any material that "promotes a relationship with the Zionist enemy [the State of Israel]." Such broad and vaguely worded proscriptions appear designed to stifle dissemination of a wide range of news, information, and ideas, well beyond the restrictions permissible under Article 19(3) of the ICCPR.

Taken together, the restrictions on the content of broadcasting and the outcome to date of the licensing process provide persuasive evidence that the government's intention is to restrict media pluralism and curtail free expression.

Human Rights Watch sought the views of the Lebanese government on a variety of issues raised in this report. As of this writing, we have not received a reply from the government to our detailed letter of January 13, 1997, which is included in the appendix of this report.