A new broadcasting charter agreed on by Arab information ministers meeting in Cairo recently has raised fears over freedom of information and expression, writes Shaden Shehab Was it the satellite channels that have allegedly aired programmes including superstition, obscenity, indecency and foul language that caused Arab governments to adopt the charter regulating satellite TV stations that was signed in Cairo on 12 February? Or are political programmes that broadcast demonstrations and criticise governments the charter's real target? Whatever the answers to these questions may be, 21 members of the Arab League -- in a rare instance of agreement -- adopted a Charter of Principles for the regulation of satellite TV stations during the recent meeting of Arab information ministers in Cairo. The charter, which is based on an Egyptian-Saudi proposal, authorises signatory countries to withdraw, freeze or revoke the broadcasting licence of any channel that breaks the regulations. It stipulates in general terms that broadcast material should not undermine "social peace, national unity, public order and traditional values" or "defame political, national and religious symbols." It demands "adherence to objectivity, sincerity and respect for the dignity of countries and their national sovereignty." These are vague stipulations, observers argue, which could freeze many satellite stations, depending on how they are interpreted. For their part, some media watchdogs have gone further and say that the charter is a response by Arab governments to the relative freedom of satellite channels, many of which encourage open political discussion of sensitive matters. In Egypt, such channels have provided opposition forces like the Muslim Brotherhood with a platform from which to broadcast their views, for example. The Brotherhood is not allowed to appear on state television because it is a "banned" group. However, in an exclusive interview with Al-Ahram Weekly 's Chief Editor Assem El-Kersh to be printed in full next week, Egypt's information minister, Anas El-Fiqi, insists that "the charter does not aim to close or restrict broadcasting freedoms," but aims instead "to protect viewers' rights". The charter aims to boost the Arab information industry and to increase the number of satellite channels, not to close them down or restrict their freedom, he said. In 1993, there were 13 channels, but this number has now increased to more than 400, and there was a need, El-Fiqi said, "to introduce regulations because things were otherwise in a state of haphazardness." Egypt and Saudi Arabia had spearheaded the initiative "because the largest number of channels come out of the [Egyptian] NileSat, and other satellites are Saudi-owned." He said that the charter, which lays down the principles to which satellite broadcasters must adhere, will be followed by the establishment of a commission or council within the framework of the Arab League that would review the implementation mechanisms. Although the minister said that the charter was not "legally binding", copies of it have already been sent to Egyptian satellite companies like the NileSat company and the Egyptian Media Production City Company, in order that they may refer to it in contracts with channels using the satellites. This would make Egypt the first country to enforce the charter, even before its implementation mechanisms have been worked out. El-Fiqi also said the charter was not meant to restrict political programmes that criticise governments or that host members of the Muslim Brotherhood or other groups. "We want people to get used to seeing protests and strikes," he said, adding that he did not think that the "satellite channels incite demonstrations, but they do sometimes blow matters out of proportion. However, I do not think they have ill-intentions, nor do I doubt their nationalism. It is only their performance that needs examination." "I understand the worries of those who oppose [the charter], but practice [as a result of the charter] will speak for itself." Hussein Amin, professor of mass communications at the American University in Cairo and one of the drafters of the charter, is also adamant that it does not violate broadcasting freedom or freedom of expression. "The charter stipulates responsible freedom and strives to limit satellite chaos. What is wrong with that? It should be understood that one person's freedom should stop when it violates other people's freedom." Amin said that having a charter to regulate satellite television was not a recent invention and cited the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the European Commission's charter as cases in point. He said that France had also appealed to its regulations in order to ban Al-Manar TV, which is broadcast by Hizbullah. For his part, prominent journalist Salah Eissa pinpointed the controversy in a nutshell. "The problem with the charter is that it has been issued by the ministers of information, or rather by the Arab governments, and these have not done much to defend freedom or increase it in the past," Eissa said. A charter of this sort should have been drafted by figures from the broadcasting profession, or by independent public figures, and not by governments, he said. Qatar, where the Al-Jazeera satellite network is based, was the only Arab League member to refrain from signing the agreement. Although its information minister said the reason was not political, for its part Al-Jazeera issued a statement calling the charter "a risk to freedom of expression in the Arab world". Wadah Kanfar, director-general of the network, stated that, "any code of ethics or governance for journalistic practices should emerge and be governed from within the profession and not imposed externally by political institutions... The region has seen the recent emergence of many media institutions, and every attempt should be made not to hamper, but rather to facilitate, their independence and freedom." The pressure group Reporters Without Borders also described the charter as potentially draconian. "These regulations are not only repressive, but they are also retrograde. Instead of working to relax the often very rigid press laws in force in their countries, the Arab League information ministers have banded together to put pressure on news media that have been annoying them and escaping their control," the group said. Media pundits argue that the state-run channels have lost viewers as a result of their old-school approach to news and entertainment, and that viewers have switched to satellite TV instead to learn about what is happening in their countries and in the world, as well as to see their problems reflected and up-to-date entertainment. Minister El-Fiqi himself said he was often not satisfied with Egyptian state television, and promised "a complete revamp this year". However, despite the reservations expressed by some, many broadcasters are not worried by the charter. Ahmed Meslemani, a journalist and presenter of Al-Taba'a Al-Uwla, or "First Edition", on Dream TV channel, is not bothered by the charter "simply because it has no worth". He said that it was an "Arab document that merely states principles that can not be legally binding since there is no law that can enforce them. It is all much ado about nothing." (see Editorial p.12, Soapbox p.13 and p.14)
