United States
H.R 2278
United States
Congress is Debating H.R. 2278
Will it curtail Arab-based Satellites from Broadcasting?
Reporters Without Borders is worried by the H.R 2278, after having passed the House of Representatives on December 8th, 2009. This piece of legislation states that the U.S. should designate as global terrorists satellite providers that knowingly and willingly contract with entities designated as specially designated global terrorists or to consider implementing other punitive measures against satellite providers that transmit al-Aqsa TV, al-Manar TV, al-Rafidayn TV, or any other terrorist owned and operated station. The legislation also states that the U.S. should consider state-sponsorship of anti-American incitement to violence when determining the level of assistance to, and frequency and nature of relations with regional states.
It is frequent that a country pressures satellite providers for political reasons for a channel to be aired off. In Saudi Arabia, Arabsat stopped broacasting the iranian TV channel Al Alam (in Arabic) and the Egyptian Nilesat in November 2009. Currently, France is inciting the 27 European members to take sanctions against Iran for it to end the jamming of BBC, VOA an Deutsche Welle.
But this resolution lacks clarity and the organization fears it to be discriminatory.
HR 2278 is too vague
The resolution is based on “anti-American incitement to violence” but the definition of anti-American incitement is impossibly broad: According to the resolution, "the term ‘anti-American incitement to violence’ means the act of persuading, encouraging, instigating, advocating, pressuring, or threatening so as to cause another to commit a violent act against any person, agent, instrumentality, or official of, is affiliated with, or is serving as a representative of the United States.”
H.R. 2278 calls for the U.S. to "designate as Specially Designated Global Terrorists satellite providers that knowingly and willingly contract with entities designated as Specially Designated Global Terrorists." However, it is not stated how many they could ben or what kind of sanction they would be submitted to if they don’t respect bill.
HR 2278 could be discriminatory
Reporters Without Borders is wondering why this resolution only targets the Middle East. This motivation can be held as discriminatory of the American muslim citizens. Why only the Arab world?
If so, H.R. 2278 contradicts American support for media freedom and could not be implemented in the Middle East today as crafted without causing great damage.
On March 18th, 2010, the US Treasury froze the assets of Gaza-based Islamic National Bank and Al-Aqsa Television, saying they were "controlled" by Hamas which Washington has branded a terrorist group. Why passing this resolution when such sanction is already possible?
It is not the first time the United States takes discriminatory decision towards muslim medias
In March 2003, Reporters Without Borders denounced the banning of reporters of the pan-Arab station Al-Jazeera from the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and warned against revenge-taking against the media because of the war in Iraq, saying that "this decision was at best clumsy and at worst a reprisal against the station". At that time, cancellation of the accreditation of Al-Jazeera’s two reporters was announced by the station, which said it was because of its coverage of the war. But NYSE spokesman Ray Pellechia told journalists that for "security reasons," it had been decided to restrict media accreditations.
However, Reporters Without Borders learned that Al-Jazeera, which has aired pictures of captured US solders, was the only one of the 26 media covering the NYSE to be excluded, although Al-Jazeera has been accredited to the NYSE for the past five years. The two barred Al-Jazeera reporters, Ammar al-Sankari and Ramzi Shiber, came after the station showed what US military commanders called "disgusting" pictures of US soldiers captured by the Iraqis. US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on 23 March, 2009, that it would be "unfortunate" if US TV stations showed such film. In October 2001, the US government strongly criticised Al-Jazeera for broadcasting the remarks of Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden.
The year before, the US military alleged that Al Jazeera cameraman Sami al-Haj was a terrorist because he had trained in Al Jazeera. The precise words were, ’the detainee admitted that he had trained in the use of the camera with Al Jazeera,’ and that is meant to be understood as some sort of terrorism. His lawyer himself, Clive Stafford Smith, was subject to accusations by the US government, alleging that he incited three prisoners to commit suicide. "I think it’s pretty disgusting that they accuse me of trying to get my clients to commit suicide." Reporters Without Borders strongly avocate in favor of al-Haj’s case for 6 years. He was released on May, 1st, 2009.
Reporters Without Borders’s position on media propaganda tools
We cannot ignore some radio- and TV stations are using media as a propaganda tool. For example, during the coup in Honduras the polarisation of the media has hurt the entire profession’s image as well as threatening the safety of journalists. For example, Radio Globo and Canal 36 television, two stations that have been the main media opponents of the 28 June coup d’état, were allowed to resume broadcasting on 19 October, three and a half weeks after the de facto government used a decree suspending civil liberties to close them down and confiscate their equipment. The day that Radio Globo and Canal 36 resumed broadcasting, a Honduran freelance journalist told Reporters Without Borders that IVOSA, the company that operates RCV, had decided on 16 October to drop three RCV programmes that were presented by feminist organisations. They were “Tiempo de hablar,” presented by the Women’s Rights Centre (CDM), “La Burallanga,” presented by the Women’s Study Centre-Honduras (CEM-H) and “Entre Chonas,” presented by the “Visitación Padilla” Women’s Committee. Reporters Without Borders has obtained copies of INVOSA documents that endorse the withdrawal of the first two of these programmes on the basis of Decree 124-2009 provisions combating “attacks on constitutional order.” INVOSA is owned by former President Ricardo Maduro Joest, whose conservative National Party backed Zelaya’s ouster in June.
According to international humanitarian law, the media held for “propaganda tool” has to be warned before taking any sanction.
For all these reasons, Reporters Without Borders urges the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate to reconsider this text.
Reporters Without Borders USA – 1500 K street NW # 600 – Washington, DC 20005
P: 202 256 5613 – Clothilde Le Coz – E: