Choking the channels--Newsweek
21 November 2007

http://www.newsweek.com/id/71564

Shahid Masood's voice cracked during his last live appearance on Geo News. Broadcasting from Dubai, the Pakistani pundit and talk show host was defiant over the news that his nation's most popular private news channel had been ordered off the air. "We are proud of this moment," said a visibly shaken Masood, as a clock counted down the minutes to shutdown. Blaming the Musharraf government for pressuring the "government of the friendly country that is hosting us" into evicting the news channel, Masood added, "We did not buckle. We are going out fighting." Then, last Saturday at 1 a.m. Pakistan time, Geo News went black.

Geo TV Network is hardly the only Pakistani media outlet to fall foul of Musharraf, who blamed the media along with terrorists and the judiciary for his decision to impose a nationwide state of emergency on Nov. 3. But the shutdown of the network-part of one of Pakistan's oldest media empires-even though it was broadcasting from outside the country, lends a new dimension to Musharraf's media crackdown. Once credited as the leader who had brought new freedom to local outlets, Musharraf's new regulations now prohibit private news outlets from "ridiculing" the "head of state, or members of the armed force, or executive, legislative or judicial organs of the state." Employees who disobey can face up to three years in prison or a fine of 10 million rupees (about $164,000). On Tuesday police detained some 150 journalists staging a peaceful protest in Karachi against the regulations; they were released after several hours.

The silencing of Geo News and ARY One World, another private news channel broadcasting from Dubai, removes an important source of independent news for citizens in a country in turmoil. The two channels had been shown via satellite from Dubai's Media City; they were shut down because Dubai authorities reportedly felt they were "interfering in the politics of another country." Official sources told NEWSWEEK that Musharraf had personally requested that Dubai leaders keep the channels "on a short leash." It is unclear if or when they will be allowed to resume operation. While some private Pakistani news channels-including a channel owned by one of Musharraf's new ministers and another owned by his son's father-in-law-have been allowed back on the air during the emergency, they had to agree first to stick to the government's new regulations. The Musharraf government wants Geo and ARY to follow the same "code of conduct" and to sack "hostile" journalists before it will allow them to go back on the air.

Geo says it has no plans to concede to government demands. In a sign of protest, its satellite frequency is running a loop of its logo adrift on stormy seas. On Saturday, when the Dubai broadcasts were stopped, journalists at Geo's Davis Road office in Lahore pulled their office furniture out to the roadside. Surrounded by dozens of supporters chanting anti-Musharraf songs and slogans, the staffers stood solemnly behind desks covered with candles and flowers given to them by civil rights activists and regular citizens. Passers-by flashed victory signs in solidarity. "We are still refusing their demand to fire key anchors and journalists," says Mir Ibrahim Rahman, Geo's CEO, from Karachi. "We do not give in to threats and intimidation."

Rahman says his company is losing $500,000 per day and was not allowed to air the India-Pakistan cricket series, for which it paid $15 million in broadcasting rights. "They've closed all our channels worldwide, including our music, entertainment and sports channels, which have nothing to do with news," he says. Rahman, like many other Pakistani journalists, says he is especially shocked that it is Musharraf who led the crackdown. "The president was once all about tolerance," he says. "More than anything else, I can't believe the person [he] has become." As protests by journalists spread this week, others expressed similar views. "When Musharraf came to power, there was no free press, no independent media," says Khawar Naeem Hashmi, bureau chief at Geo's Lahore office. Hashmi spent five years in prison under Pakistan's previous military ruler, Gen. Mohammad Zia ul-Haq, in the 1980s and was blacklisted from official functions by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in 1990s. "In the last few weeks [Musharraf] has undone one of the greatest successes attributed to him," says Hashmi. [He] will have to restore media freedom in days, not weeks."

Musharraf is unlikely to heed that plea anytime soon. Indeed, Geo was silenced shortly after the Islamabad arrival of U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, who called on the Pakistani government to lift its restrictions on the independent media. Geo is still streaming some audio and video online and hopes to resume its transmissions from Singapore, Hong Kong, Thailand or Afghanistan. But for now, Pakistanis will have to be satisfied with news from their privately owned channels that looks remarkably similar to that broadcast by state-owned Pakistan TV.

© 2007 Newsweek, Inc.

Pakistan has always been among the hardest of the hard cases when it comes to democracy -- with its volatile combination of military rule, borderland terrorist havens and the Bomb. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, few questioned the need for cooperation with President Pervez Musharraf in the Afghan campaign or the fight against al-Qaeda. And Pakistani cooperation was real, even though, as one administration official now recalls, "everyone knew they could have done more."

Immediately after Musharraf's imposition of emergency rule this month, the options were also limited. The administration could have urged the Pakistani military to overthrow Musharraf -- or pressured him to get back on track by restoring civil liberties, taking off his uniform and conducting quick, fair elections. President Bush took the latter course -- and would have been attacked as impulsive and intrusive if he had pushed for immediate regime change.

It is the years between Sept. 11 and the present that deserve more scrutiny. Early in this period there was a significant internal push at the White House to expand democracy-promotion efforts in Pakistan, to encourage party-building, modern electoral systems and the rule of law. But this initiative got little traction and was dwarfed by billions of dollars in military assistance to the government. "We should have pushed harder over the years," says one senior Bush official, "because, in the end, we need the people to be anti-extremist, not just General Musharraf." Stronger democratic institutions would come in handy right about now.

The current debate on Pakistan is a contest of historical analogies. Is Musharraf more like Ferdinand Marcos, the Filipino dictator deposed in favor of a democracy? Or is he the shah of Iran, whose fall resulted in a radical, anti-American regime?

It is Musharraf's own view that is most instructive. According to one report, he mentions a third ruler as his model -- Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Mubarak has survived by presenting America with a choice: his own oppressive, military rule or the triumph of the Islamists -- the pharaoh or the fanatics. And he has done his best to guarantee that these are the only choices by destroying moderate, democratic opposition and forcing most dissent into the radical mosque.

Musharraf seems to be on the same path. While talking about fighting radicalism, his real energy has been devoted to imprisoning and harassing his democratic opponents. As in Egypt, this approach has elevated the Islamists. Polling by the nonprofit group Terror Free Tomorrow shows broad Pakistani support for democracy, coupled with considerable sympathy for radical groups that oppose the military regime. In the long run, propping up favorable dictators to fight terrorism causes a backlash.

Fortunately, there are options in Pakistan beyond the pharaoh or the fanatics -- responsible senior leaders of the army and well-known democratic leaders. Additional pressure on Musharraf is not likely to result in an Islamist revolution. So it would make sense to cut aid to Pakistan if Musharraf does not back off from emergency rule -- not humanitarian aid, or even counterterrorism aid, but military aid not directly tied to the fight against terrorists. This would give the army a stake in Pakistan's return to democracy.

The Pakistani crisis is important for its own sake, but it is also a warning. Eventually, we will see street protests and crackdowns in Egypt -- perhaps when Mubarak passes from the scene. And the same question will arise: Have we done enough to encourage political alternatives to Islamist groups? On the current course, the answer will be "no."

The democracy agenda has suffered by its association with Iraq, but it is hardly radical or messianic. Republican and Democratic presidents have generally believed that our nation benefits from the spread of free trade, economic development, self-government, minority and women's rights, and the rule of law. Now it is even more urgent to encourage liberal forces that might someday compete with radical Islam for the future of strategically important states. This does not require immediate, destabilizing elections or universal regime change. It does require a mature, two-track relationship with oppressive nations -- recognizing current realities while applying constant pressure for hopeful change.

As we found in the Cold War, and are finding again, this kind of democratic progress seems incredible -- until it becomesirreplaceable.

Michael Gerson is the author of "Heroic Conservatism." His e-mail address is [email protected].