1

2

Pak-German Media Dialogue

Heinrich Böll Stifung (HBS)

3

Heinrich Böll Stiftung (HBS) is a political foundation affiliated with the Green Party of Germany. It was founded in 1989 and named after the German Literature Nobel Laureate and social activist Heinrich Böll. Böll's belief in and promotion of citizen participation in politics is the model for the foundation’s work.

HBS established its Pakistan office in 1993. Ever since, HBS has worked as catalyst, enabler and actor in the country. Together with its Pakistani partners, the HBS strives to create the ground for a future characterized by human dignity.

HBS Pakistan is concentrating its current work on three thematic areas. (i) Climate Change, Governance and Energy; (ii) Democratization: Women, Youth and Media; and (iii) Dialogue on Gender, Peace and Security.

Pak-German Media Dialogue

© Heinrich Böll Stiftung 2014 All rights reserved Compiled & Edited by: Imtiaz Gul & Tahira Abdullah Title: Sufi Bilal Khalid Printing: Art Impact Printers, Lahore

This publication can be ordered from

Heinrich Böll Stiftung Pakistan

Country Office:

H. No. 5, St. 90, Embassy Road, G-6/3, Islamabad, Pakistan T: +92-51-2271545-7 F: +92-51-2271548 W: www.pk.boell.org Liaison Office:

20-F, Gulberg-II, Lahore, Pakistan T: 92-42-35875616, 35755274

4

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements 5

Preface 6

Why interaction between Pakistani and German Media?

Part 1:

Pakistani-German Media Dialogue 2011

Ten Years after 9/11:

In Search for Common Ground

Introduction: Dialogue 2011 10

Executive Summary 13

The Discourse: Panel Discussions 16

Part-II: 20

Pakistani-German Media Dialogue 2013

NATO Withdrawal from Afghanistan 2014:

A Chance for Peace or Chaos?

Introduction: Dialogue 2013 25

Executive Summary 26

Panel Discussion I:

Is a political solution with the Taliban possible? 29

Panel Discussion II:

Perspectives on Media in Pakistan-Afghanistan-Germany 35

Panel Discussion III:

Changing perception of Pakistan Army? 38

Conclusion 41

Annexure I 46

Overview of Pakistani Media – a Historical Perspective

Annexure II 64

Overview of German Media

Annexure II

List of Participants 72

5

Acknowledgement

The Heinrich Boell Stiftung would like to thank Mr.Imtiaz Gul for furnishing this document with the support of Ms. Tahira Abdullah.

6

Preface

A major source of potential conflict in the contemporary world is the

presumption that people can be uniquely categorized based on

religion or culture, writes a Nobel laureate Amartya Sen in his

philosophical landmark book “Identity and Violence: The

Illusion of Destiny”.

“The implicit belief in the overarching power of a singular

classification can make the world thoroughly inflammable.”1

Sen’s argument draws on peoples’ and groups’ perceptions about one

another and how they classify others based on one or two unique

identities. This happens because of advertent bias or out of

ignorance, and thus can potentially lead to misunderstanding, sow

seeds of intellectual discord among nations and even instigate

violence by certain groups.

It was perhaps against this background that Britta Petersen, then

Country Head for the Heinrich Böll Stiftung, Pakistan conceived a

series of meetings between influential journalists and opinion makers

from Germany and Pakistan; to help them understand one another’s

perspectives, clarify clichés attached to the images of Pakistan,

Afghanistan, explain German views of the two countries, and perhaps

facilitate a correction in this view because misperceptions often

breed ill-will, distort facts and also can affect even personal relations

among professionals.

This publication therefore represents the story of two dialogues held

at two different times among media representatives and intellectuals

from Germany and Pakistan.

The first dialogue, held in October 2011 at Lahore, brought together

about a dozen German and some 15 Pakistani journalists, anchors

and intellectuals from the print and electronic media in Germany and

Pakistan, with the objective of enhancing mutual understanding on

1 Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny: published by W.W.Norton, New

York, 2007

7

various bilateral and multi-lateral issues such as Afghanistan, Indo-

Pakistan or US-Pakistan relations.

Some of the major questions to ponder during this two-day

interaction were: is there still any common ground? How can the

media contribute to a better understanding between religions,

cultures and societies? What are the possibilities of peace in the post-

9/11 world? Is there any difference between the German, European

and USG’s perspectives on the “War on Terror” and its future? Where

are the relations between the “Islamic World” and the “West”

heading? Is it possible to find any common ground at all?

Similarly, nearly two years later, the second dialogue took place at the

HBS Islamabad office. Here, too, over two dozen Pakistani and

German editors, journalists, intellectuals and anchors gathered to

ponder issues confronting both countries as well as the broader

region, particularly to the context of continued insurgency in

Afghanistan, and the simmering debate about the withdrawal of the

US-led NATO troops from that country in 2014.

Some of the questions the participants were supposed to explore

were: what did the US-led NATO peace mission achieve since the

military involvement in that country in the aftermath of the 9/11

twin-tower tragedy in New York in September 2001? Will this nearly a

trillion dollar security and reconstruction endeavour result in a more

peaceful, democratic and economically stable Afghan society, or will

the entire façade built in over a decade crumble in the face of the

raging Taliban-led insurgency? How will the pullout impact Pakistan

and in what way will affect its relations with Afghanistan. Another

frequently asked question related to the outside view of the region

that the Bush administration had relegated to the acronym “Af-Pak”,

whereby it meant to underscore a region of turmoil and instability

associated with religious terrorism and militancy. How will outsiders

measure this evolving situation, often accompanied by mutual

acrimony and suspicion?

Common to both dialogues was the presence of leading politicians

not only from Pakistan but also some from Afghanistan for greater

insights into how politics works in the two countries and how it

impacts lives of common people there. The presence of political

stakeholders also ensured that Pakistani and German journalists

8

themselves get to know the politicians and the way they look at the

situation around them.

German visitors also heard firsthand from their Pakistani

counterparts about the operational difficulties and security hazards

they face while performing their professional duty.

For greater understanding of challenges to Pakistani media and the

context in which it has evolved, a detailed overview of the media in

Pakistan is also being presented as an annexure. This also includes an

historical overview of the Pakistani media since Pakistan emerged as

an independent Muslim country in 1947.

For the benefit of Pakistani readers, this annexure also contains a

brief discussions on the media landscape in Germany and challenges

to it. It briefly explains the journalistic norms and principles

underlying media’s operations and its conduct.

The participants’ feedback on the two Dialogues, supported by the

Federal German Foreign Ministry, only reaffirmed the belief that

dialogue among nations, professionals and political stake-holders

remains an absolutely unavoidable tool for bridging gaps, correcting

perceptions, facilitating greater inter-cultural understanding, and

promoting international cooperation.

Imtiaz Gul

9

10

Part-I

Pakistani-German Media Dialogue 2011

Ten Years after 9/11:

In Search for Common Ground

9-11 October 2011, Lahore, Pakistan

11

Introduction: Dialogue 2011

“Pakistan, as I could read every morning in the newspapers, has a free

media with brilliant journalists, who are not only very critical but also

courageous. I talked to Pakistani colleagues who investigate, criticise,

and their work has an impact but too many have paid with their life

for this. I had many astonishing encounters, enlightening insights

and yet only got a glimpse of the larger picture. I came back home

and told my friends and family: ‘No, it’s not too dangerous to go to

Pakistan’.”

The lines above essentially sum up what a journalist experiences

during a few days of stay in Pakistan, and particularly following

interaction with local counterparts. These observations by Heike

Vowinkel, a Berlin-based deputy editor for the German newspapers

Die Welt and Die Berliner Morgenpost, also illustrate the value that a

dialogue between opinion-makers from two socio-culturally different

countries can bring with it.

The ideas expressed in a blog that Vowinkel wrote for Pakistan’s daily

The Express Tribune after attending the first Pakistani-German Media

Dialogue (2011) at Lahore reflected the stated intent of a close

interaction among key opinion-makers from the two countries.

This dialogue coincided with the 10th

anniversary of the terrorist

attacks in New York and Washington, DC a decade ago, followed by

the US-led invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. The detection

and killing of Osama bin Laden in northern Pakistan in May 2011 as

well as the emergence of the “Arab Spring” in February earlier in the

year provided the immediate context for such a meeting of

intellectuals. The turmoil in Pakistan’s relations with the US and its

allies following Osama bin Laden’s elimination and the alarmingly

unravelling, though controversial “Arab Spring” brought up questions

that put Pakistan under the international spotlight too.

This upheaval necessitated the need for nations to reflect on what has

happened in the last decade between the so-called “Islamic World”

and the “West”. And this became the foundation question for the first

ever Pakistani-German Media Dialogue.

12

Organized by the Heinrich Böll Stiftung (HBS) Pakistan, in

collaboration with the German Foreign Office (through the German

Embassy) at Lahore, the dialogue aimed at enhancing mutual

understanding and encouraging professional cooperation among

journalists and intellectuals from the two countries.

As many as 12 German and 15 Pakistani journalists – senior editors

and decision makers from the print and electronic media – converged

at Lahore (between October 9 and 11, 2011) for interactive media-

only discussions, supplemented also by meetings, and discussions

with senior politicians from various political parties.

Some of the key questions put before this galaxy of media stars for an

in-depth discussion were: Is there still any common ground? How can

the media contribute to a better understanding between religions,

cultures and societies? What are the possibilities of peace in the post-

9/11 world? Is there any difference between the German, European

and US perspectives on the “War on Terror” and its future? Where are

the relations between the “Islamic World” and the “West” heading? Is

it possible to find any common ground at all?

Two days of debate entailed multiple answers, some controversial,

others helping in clarifying German perceptions about Pakistan, and

comments by visiting German journalists as well as by their Pakistani

counterparts did reflect the usefulness of these meetings spread over

two days. (For more comments see Conclusion)

Jan Marberg, deputy Editor-in-chief, Magazine of the German Army

“Y”, for instance, admitted in a post-dialogue interview with the

Pakistani newspaper Daily Times that he found the ground situation

quite different from what he had heard about Pakistan and

interaction with different people had helped resolve a number of

misconceptions in his mind.

“We not only got first-hand knowledge of so many things by visiting

Pakistan but also developed a number of valuable contacts that

would help us publish the issues with in-depth details. That will help

in inspiring the German public opinion about Pakistan,” Jan said.

13

He also spoke of how the visit and the interaction with senior

Pakistani journalists had helped them understand the problems that

the Pakistani media and the people have been facing. Getting a better

understanding about the history and the background of the conflict

that had emerged in this region, especially after 9/11 was also

extremely valuable, Jan stated.

14

Executive Summary

Much of the debate during the two-day proceedings centered on the

media and its dynamics, yet it was difficult to discuss media issues in

isolation of so many other crises and challenges that Pakistan faces.

These also define the contours of the coverage and determine the

conduct of the media itself.

That is why curious German participants in particular kept coming

back to some of the fundamental but most recurring questions such

as: What is the status of minority rights in Pakistan? What is the

current situation in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and FATA areas? How do

Pakistanis in general and the Pakhtuns in particular, view the

Taliban, against the background of the Pakhtun majority living in

Afghanistan and their ethnic and linguistic connections with the

communities in Pakistan? How much influence does Pakistan wield

over the Taliban? What are its interests in Afghanistan? Can Pakistan

help in establishing democracy in Afghanistan? Did Pakistan’s army

and intelligence agencies really not know where Osama bin Laden

was hiding? Should Europe help to support the liberal forces in

Pakistan and Afghanistan vs. the Taliban?

Besides, a number of other issues also resonated during the

proceedings.

German guests, for instance, addressed issues such as corruption by

successive governments in Pakistan and the “unofficial help” by the

Pakistani military and civilian establishment for the Taliban. Since

German troops, as part of the US-led ISAF troops, are fighting the

Taliban in Afghanistan and dying there too, Pakistan’s foreign and

military policy’s concept of “using” the Taliban for “strategic depth

and as military assets” in Afghanistan is disliked in Germany.

They also pointed out that increasingly negative perceptions of

Pakistan in Germany, resulted in a drop in philanthropic and

charitable donations for humanitarian causes, e.g. the Earthquake

and Flood affectees (2005 and 2010-11).

15

They pointed out that Osama bin Laden’s detection and killing in

northern Pakistan very close to the Pakistan Military Academy (PMA)

further dented the already negative image of Pakistan in Germany.

Many Pakistani media persons and intellectuals, on the other hand,

blamed the US Government (USG) for its “bad reaction” to the 9/11

attacks. They held Washington’s unwillingness and inability to

resolve any situation without using military might, e.g. the post-9/11

invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, as the primary

reason for conflict, militancy, terrorism and political upheaval in

countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran. The use of

unpiloted drone airplanes against al-Qaeda in the tribal areas of

Pakistan bordering Afghanistan, they pointed out, was also fuelling

the militant conflict and had rendered Pakistan insecure. The US

failure to close down the infamous Guantanamo Bay prison and to

enable the incarcerated suspects to access justice through the US

judiciary, amongst other issues, was another factor.

Both Pakistani and German media persons agreed that the world in

2011 was a MORE insecure place than it was at the end of 2001. Anti-

USA emotions run high in both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The global and increasing phenomena of Islamophobia and

Xenophobia also came up for thoughtful, sober discussion followed

by apprehensions that in Germany, other European countries and

USA, there is an unprecedented rise in, fear of, and hostility towards

Muslims and Islam. This is also leading to a frightening rise in right-

wing, even extremist political parties and groups across Europe.

Questions related to the existing implementation of the Blasphemy

Laws in Pakistan were also raised by several German journalists.

In the presence of politicians representing various Pakistani political

parties (both in the coalition Government and the Opposition),

Pakistan’s internal politics and party positions were discussed thread

bare. Pakistan’s role in the “war on terror” and the frequent terrorist

attacks on its soil, especially in FATA and KP; as well as the separatist

nationalist insurgency in south-western Balochistan province also

generated a lively debate.

German participants wondered as to why Pakistan had failed in

coming up with a solid counter-terrorism and counter-extremism

16

policy. They asked as to whether Germans and Europeans could help

Pakistan in tackling the growing wave of extremism and intolerance.

The importance of safeguarding Pakistan’s sovereignty and writ, as

well as acknowledging the huge sacrifices that Pakistan has made,

with over 50,000 Pakistani being martyred since 9/11 – and rising

each day, was emphasized.

The fate of peace talks with the Taliban in both Afghanistan and

Pakistan also came under discussion, whereby Pakistani journalists

and intellectuals noted that both USA and Europe were looking for a

political dialogue to end the Afghan conflict through “peaceful

means”, while they were pushing Pakistan for military action against

the Taliban on its territory.

The fact that the killing of scores of journalists has now put Pakistan

amongst the 3 most dangerous countries in the world for journalists,

was an important theme for the debate, especially during the

participants’ visit to the South Asian Free Media Association

(SAFMA), where its director made a presentation on Pakistan’s media

laws and policies, repression against journalists and the working

environment of journalists who report on security, defence and

related political issues.

17

The Discourse: Panel Discussions

The first panel discussion started off with a short presentation about

the German perceptions of Pakistan and vice versa. Marcus Pindur,

Editor Deutschland Radio Berlin, stated that the German public views

about Pakistan have changed over the years, adversely affected by

incidents such as the elimination of Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad,

Pakistan on May 2, 2011. The German public view is that their tax

money supports a ‘corrupt’ Pakistani government which is offering

‘unofficial’ help to the extremists. And these extremists are killing

German soldiers who are posted in the north of Afghanistan. A

declining willingness among Germans to donate money for

humanitarian causes also underlines how Pakistan’s image has

suffered over the years; this gradual aversion can be measured by the

fact that the donations for the deadly earthquake in 2005 generated

more funds within Germany, compared to the flash floods in 2010,

they pointed out.

Ejaz Haider, security analyst and columnist of The Friday Times and

daily Express Tribune offered his perspective on the post-9/11 events.

He was of the view that that the US reacted badly to the terrorist

attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. Unfortunately,

he said, the Bush administration also never seriously considered

opportunities and signals for a political way out of the anti-terror war

and kept pushing the military options in Afghanistan, accompanied

by relentless drone attacks in Pakistan’s border regions. This also

placed limitations on the capability of Pakistani and Afghan

governments and bound their hands in the face of mounting public

anger against the US-led coalition forces’ actions in Afghanistan, Iraq

and their belligerent policies vies-a-vis Pakistan, he argued.

Haider concluded that the failure of the US policies was evident from

the fact that the security situation had gone from bad to worse,

making Pakistan insecure like never before. And this invariably

means that people at large and the governments in particular are now

more preoccupied with security issues than taking care of the

problems arising out of insecurity.

18

This session also addressed Islamophobia and Xenophobia in

western countries. Cem Sey, a German-Turkish national and German

correspondent for the Turkish newspaper Taraf, asked whether the

9/11 events provided the trigger for what Samuel Huntington had

predicted in his book ‘Clash of Civilizations’ between the so-called

Muslims and the West?

Several journalists agreed with Daniel Bax, from the German

newspaper Tages zeitung, that in fact both sides have the same topics

and issues which they are discussing and facing, i.e. threats from

extremists and the ensuing security challenges. The 9/11 events, they

concurred, had changed the entire global security dynamics, and

thereby prompted controversial changes in laws such as the Patriot

Act, USA. Other countries followed suit too and this entailed serious

implications for the fundamental human rights.

The session involving Begum Abida Hussain, a former ambassador

and a member of the ruling Pakistan Peoples’ Party (PPP), and

Hashim Babar of the Pakhtoon nationalist Awami National Party

(ANP) explored dynamics of Pakistan’s internal politics, i.e. party

politics, situation in KP and FATA, sectarian issues and how Europe can

support the liberal forces in Pakistan.

Both comprehensively explained the roots of sectarian violence and

the militancy that has been sweeping the Pakhtoon lands, namely

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and FATA; Hussain is a Shia Muslim and

belongs to the central Punjab district of Jhang which is the hub of

radical anti-Shia sectarian forces. Babar, himself a Pakhtoon

(currently advisor to the KP provincial government) invoked

historical references to elaborate the troubles that the Pakhtoon

regions are currently embroiled in. The Soviet invasion and the US

response to it essentially pushed the region into religious militancy

and is suffering its consequences to date.

German journalists Jan Ross, Jan Marberg, and Pakistani analysts

Khaled Ahmed and Rahimullah Yusufzai spoke on the possibilities of

talking peace with the Taliban. In Khaled Ahmed’s view the Taliban

have flouted all the past agreements and were not trustworthy. Also,

he underlined, the Taliban don’t seem inclined to compromise their

stated objectives, i.e. the enforcement of their own version of Islamic

Sharia in Pakistan.

19

Rahimullah Yusufzai, a renowned analyst and writer on Taliban

matters, agreed that the Taliban forces were inimical to talks on the

government terms. They live in their own world and will enter into

dialogue on their conditions, something neither the military nor the

civilian government might be able to concede.

This panel also dealt with some fundamental questions such as how

much influence does Pakistan yield over the Taliban? And what are its

interests in Kabul? Did Pakistan’s army really not know where Osama

bin Laden was hiding? Most Pakistani participants conceded that the

discovery of bin Laden, the world’s most wanted terrorist, indeed

came as a rude shock and sheer embarrassment to almost every

Pakistani. They however offered no cogent answer to the question as

to whether the military establishment knew about bin Laden’s

whereabouts or not.

On the sidelines of the Dialogue, the then German Ambassador to

Pakistan, Dr. Michael Koch, met with the German journalists and

gave them a background briefing on Pakistan besides sharing his view

on the future of Pakistan as well as its relations with Afghanistan.

German journalists also visited the independent South Asian Free

Media Association (SAFMA), a media watchdog operating across

South Asia. Imtiaz Alam, the SAFMA secretary-general, briefed the

visitors on Pakistani media policies, repression against journalists

and the working environment of journalists who continue reporting

on security and political issues despite security hazards to their lives.

During a working dinner interaction with Ahsan Iqbal, then Deputy

Secretary-General of the PML-N (now a Federal Minister) and Shah

Mahmood Qureshi, former Foreign Affairs Minister, the German

journalists got another glimpse into complex Pakistani politics and

their impact on life in general.

Ahsan Iqbal appreciated the media dialogue and hoped it would

result in better understanding for senior journalists of both the

countries — Pakistan and Germany. He also expressed the optimism

that despite the current gloomy situation Pakistan would emerge as a

more powerful state. Iqbal also cautioned against an abrupt

departure of the US-led foreign forces from Afghan and feared that if

left alone to deal with the post-2014 situation in Afghanistan,

20

Pakistan could face serious security and economic challenges. It

would be extremely difficult for the country to handle the situation

on its own, Iqbal said, underlining that Pakistan would need

international support and recognition for its due role in Afghanistan.

Shah Mahmood Qureshi, too, emphasised the importance of

Pakistan’s sovereignty and its contribution to the US-led anti-terror

war in Afghanistan. He listed Pakistan’s sacrifices and urged the West

to be more empathetic to Pakistan’s concerns next door (i.e.

Afghanistan).

Qureshi also appreciated the event and hoped that the Pak-German

Media Dialogue will become a regular annual feature and would

create a better understanding between Pakistan and a strong

European actor, Germany.

As expected, questions related to the existing Blasphemy Law in

Pakistan also surfaced in the course of the debate. Several German

journalists wondered as to whether the law had any utility,

particularly in view of the fact that in most cases it was the Muslims

who were being charged under the law. The debate on this issue also

highlighted the sensitivities of the German media on issues such as

Blasphemy or Women’s Rights. It turned out to be quite eye-opening

for many Pakistani journalists and intellectuals to know that, being

the product of a democratic society, the German media looked at the

issue purely on the grounds of equal citizenry and not along sectarian

lines. Protection against unlawful persecution on religious grounds is

something unthinkable in the Federal Republic of Germany, they

were told by their German counterparts.

21

22

Part-II:

Pakistani-German Media Dialogue 2013

NATO Withdrawal from Afghanistan 2014:

A Chance for Peace or Chaos?

4-6 December 2013, Islamabad, Pakistan

23

Why interaction between Pakistani and German

Media?

Interaction between Pakistani and German media is an exciting idea

for a variety of reasons. The two countries are vastly different, if not

the opposite to each other. One is a strong European player with a

commanding role among the comity of nations, while the other is

grappling with the monster of extremism, terrorism, a subsequent

deterioration in law and order and socio-economic indicators.

A tabloid in Germany can be threatened through a text message by a

high government official regarding a personal loan taken by him and

the entire episode ends with a whimper.

Whereas in Pakistan, a dissenting journalist or an anchorperson may

well end up in a morgue or may witness the killing of his/her security

guard or driver just to teach him/her a lesson.

The media in the two societies has different sets of issues. A great

manifestation of the stark differences between Pakistan and Germany

can be gauged by the annual report of Reporters Without Borders

(RSF) for 2013. According to the RSF index, Germany is ranked 17th

amongst 179 countries, whereas Pakistan has achieved a low ranking

of 159th

amongst 179.

The index may or may not be objective in one way or the other, yet

the huge divide between the two countries is reflective of the

respective levels of tolerance/intolerance, and of

maturity/immaturity regarding the utilization of the freedom of

expression in the two countries.

In such a contrasting social milieu, journalists from the two countries

can benefit from a mutual exchange of ideas and experiences, which

can start bridging the huge gap between the two countries.

For instance, a German journalist who does not have an idea about

the Madrassa (religious seminary) system of education in Pakistan

may find it hard to comprehend the complications of religious

extremism in Pakistan. Similarly, a Pakistani journalist may not be

able to understand the nature of existing taboos in German society

24

and media. Such media dialogues can play a significant role in

bridging these gaps.

Exchanges of views between journalists of the two countries are of

significance for a number of reasons:

o A significant number of Pakistanis live in Germany and to an extent their degree of social acceptability depends on how the German media portrays Pakistan locally. Views merely based on media reports can be misleading and hence can cause more prejudice.

o Both Pakistan and Germany can benefit more economically and politically when media in both the countries are free of misconceptions and are providing objective information to the relevant quarters.

o There is a large Afghan diaspora living in Germany since the past three decades. The planned withdrawal of the NATO forces from Afghanistan is likely to have multiple impacts, both on Afghanistan and Pakistan. Both the countries are in close geographical proximity and that fact warrants close and suspicion-free ties between the two nations. Journalists from Germany and Pakistan can play a significant role in becoming harbingers of peace and cooperation between the two neighbours.

o For Pakistan, a lot of problems arise out of the misconceptions about Pakistan and its people in the West. Germany, being a strong European Union member, and a world economic powerhouse, can help to portray an effective perception of Pakistan through the German public and private sector media. This will be possible when journalists from both countries meet and dialogue frequently.

According to the German journalist, Heike Vowinkel, “I met a

[Pakistani] law student who told me how open-minded her parents

had brought her up. That she had always been able do what her

brothers had done and to choose on her own what she wanted. Her

father, a military man, was dead and her two brothers had joined the

25

army. She longed for change, for less influence of the military and

more democracy.”

Such encounters on a greater and more frequent level will hopefully

bring about a change of opinion in the German media and public

opinion regarding Pakistan.

The Taliban issue also plays a huge role in creating a negative image

of Pakistan. The USA and its allies (including Germany) have a certain

point of view, which vastly differs from the Pakistani narrative. It is

easier for outsiders to apply their own contextual yardstick in

condemning or criticising or even appreciating something playing

out in as complex a situation as it currently obtains in Pakistan and

Afghanistan. Yet, it is equally necessary to explain to them the local

context which often enforces unholy compromises among

stakeholders.

For example, Ejaz Haider, a security analyst, columnist and TV

anchorperson, expressing his views during the 2011 Pakistan-German

media dialogue, stated that the US reaction on the attacks on the

World Trade Centre and the Pentagon was not fitting. Opportunities

and signals to resolve the post-9/11 situation without the huge

military intervention in Afghanistan and the USA’s drone attacks in

Pakistan have not been taken seriously by the USA. He said the failure

of the USG policies is reflected by the worsening security situation in

Afghanistan.

On the other hand, the presence of German soldiers in Afghanistan as

well as the stream of news surrounding the killings of ISAF soldiers

there also influences the coverage of these events and by implication

shapes the views of the German public. Marcus Pindur, editor at

Deutschland Radio in Berlin, also resonated this point during the

discussions. He said that the German public’s views about Pakistan

had changed over the years and had become more negative since

2005, and especially so, after the finding and killing of Osama bin

Laden in Pakistan in May 2011.

In the German public opinion, their tax money supports a “corrupt”

Pakistani government, which offers “unofficial” assistance to

26

terrorists and extremists, who are killing German soldiers fighting in

Afghanistan.

The Heinrich Böll Stiftung, is therefore, thankful to the Federal

Foreign Office for supporting such an endeavour in the spirit of

promoting inter-institutional professional dialogue among nations

which invariably facilitates better understanding of respective socio-

political contexts.

27

Introduction: Dialogue 2013

Throughout much of the year 2013, policy-makers, strategic

forecasters, intellectuals, academia and politicians inter alia,

particularly in the leading NATO countries such as the United States,

Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, Netherlands, France, as well

as Australia and Japan, remained busy in grappling with several

questions surrounding the post-pullout future of Afghanistan.

Against this backdrop, the Heinrich Böll Stiftung, Pakistan, too,

decided to dedicate the 2013 Pakistan-German Media Dialogue to the

same key issues. One of the considerations was to help Pakistani and

German media representatives better understand their respective

views on Pakistan and Afghanistan. Pakistan’s image in the German

media is often defined by news flashes of violence, continuous

instability, alleged abetment of and support for Afghan and Kashmiri

militants, the predominance of military in the uneasy civil-military

relations and Islamabad’s alleged historical pursuit for a client state

Afghanistan in its strategic backyard.

The idea behind the media dialogue was also to help senior

journalists and opinion-makers scrutinize or articulate certain issues

flowing from state policies in a more detailed intellectual way, and try

removing misperceptions – and there are plenty. These discussions

were meant to be different from the cursory treatment that news and

views related to Pakistan and Afghanistan get in the German media.

As it turned out, the dialogue did help in removing misperceptions

and facilitated a candid exchange of views, enriched with the

participation of some leading Pakistani and Afghan civil and military

officials – both retired and serving – as well academia and

intellectuals.

28

Executive Summary

The impending withdrawal of the NATO and ISAF troops from

Afghanistan in December 2014 poses an enormous challenge for the

region and especially for Pakistan. The relationship between the two

neighbors is characterized by deep-rooted mistrust and missteps.

Pakistani participants expressed the fear of an increased spill-over of

the Afghan conflict into their own territory with further impetus to

religious radicalization once the bulk of the foreign forces leave

Afghanistan. Afghan guest speakers reiterated the popular notion that

Pakistan continues to view their country as a possible client state

with a pliant regime installed in Kabul with the help of the Taliban.

Afghans also sounded convinced that Pakistan is “still using the

Taliban as its “military assets” as part of its efforts to secure “strategic

depth” on its western border. A number of Pakistanis agreed with this

notion but others disputed this cliché because of its relevance in the

post-9/11 scenario. They believed that the policy of so-called

“Strategic Depth” to the western borders is long dead in view of the

new circumstances.2

Such misgivings are deeply entrenched and often hard to rub off from

public minds, particularly because they often resonate in the

respective national media. This reiteration not only fuels bilateral

tensions but also plays out in the foreign media coverage of the two

countries. German media is no exception either. Much of its

reporting on Pakistan and Afghanistan draws on clichés and often

superficial analysis drawn on local media resources. In Germany, the

public image of both the neighbouring countries is dominated by

stereotypes and an almost exclusive focus of reporting on the violent

conflict and human rights violations, ignoring other developments

and issues.

Since both Pakistan and Afghanistan will most likely remain the focus

of public and media attention in Germany because of the diminishing

2 The theory of so-called ‘Strategic Depth”, coined in the mid-1970s by then Prime

Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, was a concept that grew out of Pakistan’s acrimonious relationship with its eastern neighbour India. The primary idea behind this was to have a friendly government in Kabul so Islamabad should not have to worry about its western border in case of an armed conflict with India.

29

role of the Federal German Army in Afghanistan 2014, the HBS

thought it fit to put leading opinion makers from all three countries

across the table in a trilateral media dialogue. It essentially aimed at

bringing journalists from Pakistan and Germany together, in order to

sensitize them on broader issues of the region and try purging their

discourse from stereotypical biases and superficial analysis on the

future of the region beyond 2014. A few journalists and experts from

Afghanistan were also invited to give their inputs, in order to balance

and present a holistic perspective.

30

Panel Discussion I

31

Is a political solution with the Taliban possible?

This panel discussion brought together speakers such as Humayun

Shah Asefi, Vice-Presidential candidate in 2009 (Afghanistan),

Senator Afrasiab Khattak (Awami National Party), Daniyal Aziz,

Member National Assembly (PML-N), Faisal Sabzwari, Member

National Assembly (Muttahida Qaumi Movement), and Allama Hafiz

Tahir Mahmood Ashrafi, Chairman Pakistan Ulema Council.

One of the most recurring thoughts that echoed during this heated

panel discussion was that some warring groups in Afghanistan could

perhaps be isolated from the hardcore Taliban (i.e. those linked to al-

Qaeda), by redressing their practical grievances through good

governance and creation of economic opportunities.

Some participants argued that the Taliban were a stakeholder in

Afghan peace and should be included in any future dialogue process.

Yet others dismissed the idea of talking to those “who have been

killing even their own people.”

During the discussion, most of the speakers cautioned against

foreign-imposed solutions and underscored the need for the Afghans

to themselves decide their future.

The media also got a snub during this session, when the Afghan

participants in particular urged it to help remove misunderstandings

between Pakistan and Afghanistan, rather than stoking fears,

uncertainty and pushing respective establishments’ agendas.

Humayun Shah Asefi, who was a vice-presidential candidate in the

2009 Afghan election recounted the sufferings of Afghans since the

Soviet invasion of his country in December 1979 and said all Afghans

were fed up with the perennial state of uncertainty. They want peace

and economic opportunities

Asefi also ruled out the possibility of Taliban returning to power after

withdrawal of the US troops, saying that things have changed

tremendously and majority of Afghans, the younger generation in

particular, are against religious extremist forces such as the Taliban.

He reiterated that “for Afghans, Pakistan is an important country and

32

similarly Afghanistan is that important for Pakistan. Both however

need to remove misunderstandings and the trust deficit by increasing

people-to-people contacts and exchange of delegations of politicians

and media from both the countries.

Asefi also dismissed as wishful thinking the oft-repeated notion of a

“friendly government in Kabul.” Pakistan should stop dreaming of a

puppet government in Kabul.

"I think it must be very clear to everyone...a friendly government in

Afghanistan is possible but an obedient government [as a result of

reconciliation process] is just wishful thinking," Asefi said, adding

that it is high time that everybody should realise their past mistakes

and recognise Afghanistan as an independent and sovereign state.

Asefi, however, sounded optimistic with regard to the government of

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. “The establishment of a new

government in Pakistan in June this year does signal signs of hope for

peace in Afghanistan and we hope Pakistani government will do

whatever it can for peace in Afghanistan.”

In his address to the participants, Senator Afrasiab Khan Khattak of

the Awami National Party (ANP) drew comparisons between the

situation of the late 1980s, when most of the world had practically

disengaged and left Afghanistan on its own, and the circumstances in

2013, when most of the leading nations such as the United States,

UN, China, India and Turkey were actively engaged in Afghanistan’s

peace, security and reconstruction efforts. And this has helped

Afghanistan undergo several transitions such as general and

presidential elections, institution-building and greater enrolment of

boys and girls in educational institutions, and advances in telecom.

The emergence of national security forces, i.e. Afghan National Army

and the Afghan Police, too, marked a big step forward that has

happened with the support of the friendly countries. This will work as

a bulwark against the Taliban, Khattak underlined.

He also brushed aside the argument by some Pakistani officials and

intellectuals that the Taliban could not be defeated in Afghanistan.

33

"If some Taliban are living in Islamabad how they can be defeated in

Kabul,” Khattak quipped in a reference to allegations by the Afghan

government that most Taliban leaders were sheltering in Islamabad

and other Pakistani cities. The real issue between Pakistan and

Afghanistan is not the border management but the outsourcing of the

border [Pak-Afghan border] to the (Taliban) militants.” 3

Khattak, too, advocated an inclusive solution after an intra-Afghan

consultation but warned against an externally imposed solution. This

will not work, he emphasized.

Khattak, himself a nationalist Pakhtoon, pointed out how the social

media was helping the much-more aware and sensitized educated

youth in acquiring and disseminating knowledge. Another major

difference in today’s Afghanistan, Khattak explained, was that unlike

the ideological polarization that had emerged in the 1980s (following

the Soviet Union’s invasion and occupation of Afghanistan) such as

Islam versus Communism, the country today has more space for a

liberal debate and national reconciliation.

He called for comprehensive confidence-building measures (CBMs)

between Kabul and Islamabad to deal with a number of serious

security and political issues that continue to threaten stability in

Afghanistan. Pakistani state institutions must try to erase the

common perception that Pakistan was supporting the Taliban

insurgents. This requires firm action and demonstrable commitment

and that can do wonders if Pakistanis managed to convince their

Afghan counterparts that they have no favourites in Afghanistan.

Daniyal Aziz, member of the national legislature, representing the

ruling Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N), spoke on the wider geo-

strategic factors that he said would determine peace in Afghanistan,

not the Taliban, religious bigotry or the so-called strategic depth

mantra. He said the western powers were still holding their vision for

the future Afghanistan close to their chest. Unless they come out

3 Most of the 2,560 km border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is porous and

largely unmanned. Pakistan claims to maintain some 970 border security posts, compared to less than 200 on the Afghan side. Afghan officials claim that Taliban militants move across the border unhindered and unchecked by the Pakistani security forces.

34

openly with their vision, Pakistan should not be expected to do more

and adopt a hands-off policy, he added.

Hafiz Mohammad Tahir Mahmood Ashrafi, Chairman of the Pakistan

Ulema Council, a liberal cleric and very vocal on minorities’ rights,

said any dialogue for a political solution to the Afghan issue would be

futile without the participation of the Taliban who had a strong

support in the country. That is why they have survived for so long and

been able to inflict losses on Afghan and international forces. They

have a cause to which many Afghans subscribe, he said. He claimed

that it was because of the grass-roots support enjoyed by the Taliban

led by Mullah Omar that the western powers wanted to engage them

in the dialogues.

“If the US occupied Pakistan we will do the same as what the Afghan

Taliban Chief Mullah Omar is doing in Afghanistan," Ashrafi said in

defence of the Mullah Omar-led insurgency. He however rejected the

presence of Mullah Omar in Pakistan, or the existence of the Quetta

Shura.

He also had a word of advice for both Kabul and Islamabad:

“Things could become better if Pakistan stops considering

Afghanistan as its fifth province and Afghanistan refrains from

treating Pakistan the way India treats Pakistan,” Ashrafi said.

Faisal Sabzwari, the MQM legislator, said Pakistan must prioritize

solutions to its own problems. The government must invest in its own

people rather than remaining obsessed with a policy that has led

Pakistan down a disastrous path. Backing groups such as the Taliban

will take Pakistan nowhere. They do not hold any promise for this

country. On the contrary, Sabzwari underlined, they represent

obscurantism which will only hurt Pakistan.

Most of participants, however, sounded skeptical of a peaceful

political resolution in Afghanistan in view of the surging Taliban

insurgency and the stalled peace process since the Afghan

government’s rejection of the Taliban office in Doha, Qatar in June,

2013. Nor did they see any hope for de-escalation in the TTP-led4

4 TTP stands for Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, an anti-state group formed by

Baitullah Mehsud in December 2007 in South Waziristan (Mehsud regions). The

35

violence in Pakistan. Some elements within the Afghan and Pakistani

Taliban, opined Pakistani participants, might become part of the

mainstream through sustained and coordinated efforts, but they also

cautioned against equating the Afghan Taliban with their Pakistani

counterparts. They drew a distinction between the Afghan and

Pakistani Taliban. The former, they said, justify their insurgency by

calling it a “jihad against the US-led occupation forces.” The

Pakistani Taliban, the TTP in particular, are on the other hand

challenging the state of Pakistan, asking it to sever its ties with the

United States and its allies. In doing so, the TTP has ratcheted up

unprecedented violence across Pakistan. Yet, on the face of it, both

the Afghan and the Pakistani Taliban appear to be focused on the

singular agenda of imposing their brand of Islam on the rest.

Some of the speakers, while sharing their concerns regarding the

government’s peace overtures towards the Pakistani Taliban, argued

that offering talks to the TTP would only embolden the TTP5 and lend

it socio-political legitimacy. They argued that the TTP never

displayed seriousness in a peaceful solution, and, in fact, have made

it clear time and again, that they are not interested in any dialogue

with any democratically elected government of the country.

group demands enforcement of Sharia all over Pakistan. It owes allegiance to Afghan Taliban chief Mullah Omar but is largely focused on targeting Pakistan’s security establishment. It also rejects the present political dispensation as well as the Constitution of Pakistan as un-Islamic.

5 Soon after becoming the third time prime minister, Nawaz Sharif had hinted at

talks with the banned TTP in an effort to end violence

36

Panel Discussion II

37

Perspectives on Media in Pakistan-Afghanistan-

Germany

Senior Pakistani journalists M. Ziauddin (Editor-in-Chief, daily The

Express Tribune), Imtiaz Gul (Political Analyst, Columnist weekly The

Friday Times) and Hasnain Kazim, (former Pakistan correspondent

for the most influential German weekly magazine Der Spiegel) gave

their perspectives on the evolution of media in Pakistan, with

particular emphasis on the phenomenal growth of the electronic

media since 2002, when private radio and tv channels increased

phenomenally.

Speakers also shared their views on the role of media regarding the

conflict in Afghanistan, and the overall security situation in the

region. The speakers said that despite some gaps and weaknesses, the

media overall continued to play an important role in generating and

shaping crucial debates on issues such as security, religious

militancy, conflict-induced humanitarian crisis, and the democratic

transition.

M. Ziauddin recounted the journalists’ struggle for preserving their

professional freedoms in the country’s history, particularly under

military regimes since October 1958, when General Ayub Khan

imposed Martial Law and suspended all liberties. His successors,

General Yahya Khan (1969-1971) and General Zia-ul-Haq (1977-

1988), too, treated the media with authoritarian disdain, exposing

media houses and working journalists to harsh conditions of

censorship and reprisals. The veteran journalist likened the three

military dictatorships to “dark ages” for the press – also chronicled in

a landmark book “The Press in Chains” by the late journalist Zamir

Niazi. Mr. Ziauddin underlined that the press had won its freedom at

high cost and did not get it on a platter. However, while pressures

continue and the uneasy civil-military relations also reflect on the

media and keep casting their shadows on the print and electronic

media, yet the Pakistani press as a whole has come a long way in the

last decade or so.

In his presentation on the Pakistani media landscape, Hasnain Kazim

gave his impressions as a German correspondent based in Pakistan

38

until early 2013. Kazim sounded very dismissive of the media in

general for poor standards of journalism. He listed several

shortcomings in the print and electronic media, such lack of

professionalism, little investigative journalism, and casual or scant

follow-up of important stories and dearth of human resource

development within the industry itself. By doing so, Mr. Kazim threw

light on the Pakistani media in general.

In response to Mr. Kazim, Imtiaz Gul took up from where M.

Ziauddin left off. Gul, also a former correspondent for Germany’s

overseas broadcaster Deutsche Welle, disputed Kazim’s

generalizations about the Pakistani media. He agreed that the media

at large suffered from shortcomings but reminded the participants

that journalists in Pakistan owed their freedoms greatly to committed

veterans like renowned poet Faiz Ahmad Faiz (a former editor of The

Pakistan Times), M. Ziauddin, Husain Naqi, I. A. Rehman, Zamir

Niazi, Minhaj Barna, Aziz Siddiqui, Nasir Zaidi, and so many others

who gave their blood and sweat to protect journalistic freedoms from

ruthless dictatorial assaults. Pakistanis are proud of these journalists

for having stood up to autocratic military and civilian rulers, Gul

underlined, and agreed that, like other fields of life, media, too, does

suffer from weaknesses and there was still a huge room for

improvement. (For more details on Pakistani media’s

evolution and its current situation please see the Annexure

on Pakistani Media)

39

Panel Discussion III

40

Changing perception of Pakistan Army?

Participants experienced a very lively debate on this controversially

complex issue. Retired army officers, Maj. Gen. Ithar Hussain Shah,

Gen. (retd.) Asad Durrani, Gen. (retd.) Talat Masood and Gen. (retd.)

Agha Farooq gave their views on whether perceptions of the army

have changed over time. Veteran journalist Hussain Naqi and the

head of the Institute of Strategic Studies (ISSI) Dr. Rasul Baksh Rais

spoke from their civilian perspective on the issue, particularly to the

context of former president Gen. Pervez Musharraf’s resignation in

August 2009.

Most agreed that the civil-military equation was gradually correcting

itself under the democratic transition since Musharraf’s departure.

Relatively peaceful elections in May 2013, followed by the retirement

of former army chief General Pervez Kayani in November, and of

Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry in December 2013 marked huge steps

forward in the country’s volatile political history.

They concluded that it is a good sign that the military is backing the

initiatives taken by the civilian government with regard to peace and

security in the region. Regardless of whether by compulsion or by

choice, the General Headquarters (GHQ) meanwhile is a less

aggressive institution in view of a more assertive judiciary, vibrant

independent media and a grand political consensus against army

take-overs.

Guest speakers, however, were unanimous in admitting that because

of its long history of involvement in politics – direct interventions or

otherwise – the military in Pakistan remained a pre-dominant player

which is more organized, unified and clear in its objectives, unlike

political parties which suffer from dynastic, elitist style of leadership.

While political parties endlessly talk of democracy, the conduct of

their leaders defies fundamental democratic norms, with the result

that these parties have little room for a genuine and inclusive

democratic debate.

That is why, speakers maintained, while being on the defensive, the

military remained very much in control of strategic foreign policy

41

issues such as relations with India, USA and Afghanistan. Some were

of the view that the military needed to stay within its institution and

not step into something for which they had no training.

During the proceedings, different perceptions emerged about the

future of Afghanistan in the wake of the withdrawal of the NATO/ISAF

troops from Afghanistan in 2014. Some speakers were quite

optimistic about the promising future of, and stability in Afghanistan,

while others feared Afghanistan may once again descend into chaos

once the foreign troops depart.

The withdrawal of foreign troops may also pose an enormous

challenge for the entire region, not just for Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, the relationship between these two neighbouring

countries has been characterized by deep-rooted mistrust that needs

to be addressed bilaterally. Some also pointed out that the

acrimonious Indo-Pakistan relations also reflect in their respective

policies on Afghanistan, where both countries seem to be fighting for

political clout.

Besides the public panel discussions, the Dialogue also included inter

active lectures by key officials – serving and retired – on subjects such

as:

a) Afghanistan then and now: How the country has changed after the end of the Taliban regime

b) Beyond Strategic Depth: The Pakistani government and its critics

c) Talking with the Taliban - Does Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) have a concept?

d) What does the Pakistan Army want?

These particular sessions on December 5 and 6 were preceded by a

stage-setting background session of the German visitors with

Ambassador Dr. Cyril Nunn, and followed by lectures by Aizaz

Chaudhry, the Foreign Secretary, Sherry Rehman (Former

Ambassador to Washington, and ex-legislator of Pakistan Peoples’

Party (PPP), Maj. General Athar Abbas, former spokesperson for the

Pakistan armed forces (ISPR), and Mian Khurshid Kasuri, Former

Foreign Minister.

42

Much of the discussion that flowed from these sessions contained a

lot of information and ideas that resonated during the public panel

discussions too. But the idea behind these sessions was to enable the

German journalists get incisive background and critical analysis in

the small group of participants. Pakistani military establishment’s

decades-old theory of strategic depth drew quite a lot of adverse

comments from participants such as Hussain Naqi etc. They likened

the idea of “strategic depth” to an illusion which had created more

problems for Pakistan than helping it. Foreign Secretary Chaudhry as

well as retired Generals Athar Abbas, Ithar Hussein, Talat Masood

and Asad Durrani, however, disagreed with their civilian

counterparts, saying that the “theory of strategic depth” had long lost

its relevance because of the drastically changed circumstances.

The Pakistani army is not oblivious to the changed geo-strategic

environment and would be stupid to continue pursuing goals set in

the 1970s in a radically changed world in 2014, Gen. Abbas observed.

Others, too, insisted that Afghans had always been “their own

masters and gullible to external pressure or persuasion only when it

suits them.” And this reality essentially precludes the possibility of an

“obedient or client government” in Kabul, they insisted.

Civilian critics in Pakistan, and key stakeholders in Afghanistan,

though refused to accept that the strategic pulse of the Pakistani

military has changed. They accused it of being duplicitous when it

comes to drawing a distinction between “good Taliban” (those who

cooperate and do not damage Pakistani interests), and the “bad

Taliban” (those who refuse to talk and continue to attack Pakistani

political and economic interests).

43

Conclusion

The two dialogues between the journalists of Germany and Pakistan

(2011 and 2013) provided excellent opportunities for both to gain new

insights and awareness about each other, and the challenges they

face. Both were appreciative of the importance of such a meeting of

minds where they were able to discuss threadbare issues of common

interest and also dissected the problems that often arise out of

ignorance or little knowledge about each other.

The German media is one of the most robust and diverse in the world.

In Germany, the media has gone full circle since the end of the

Second World War and the society is fully cognizant of the

importance of a fully independent and responsible media. Their

counterparts in Pakistan are very recent entrants and are still on the

learning curve as regards media independence and freedom.

The Pakistani print media (and now including the privately-owned

electronic media since the past decade), on the other hand, has

weathered a large number of crises since Independence in 1947. And,

since the opening up of the privately-owned electronic media in

2002, the media landscape has undergone dramatic changes, albeit

not necessarily always for the better. Its unprecedented freedom has

allowed a huge space for debate, but there are also some glaring

errors of editorial judgment being made.

This hard-won freedom has been abused as well. Some journalists,

anchorpersons and owners of media houses unfortunately have

abused their position as a licence to act as lobbyists and activists,

posing as “public representatives”. Their owners, driven mainly by

commercial pursuits, or orthodox ideological leanings, have also

tended to exploit their own platforms, more as a private enterprise

than as professionals.

Yet, on the whole, the private media has emerged as a strong voice. It

does serve as a watchdog over the government, as well as a valuable

platform for debate on all kinds of issues. It requires moderation, and

more focus on social issues vs. politics or sensationalist news

44

presentation. It is still evolving, and has yet to mature as a

responsible medium.

Continued interaction with foreign journalists can serve as a

moderating effect on leading media managers, journalists and

writers, and thereby help raise professional standards.

Similarly, if the German-Pakistan Media Dialogue succeeds in driving

the above issues home, it would have carried out an important

service.

Positive feedback from the returning German media persons will help

to spread awareness of Pakistan’s improving record regarding the

media’s freedom of expression and rights, as well as of the issues it

faces.

Such bilateral dialogues need to continue and to be expanded both

within the EU and within the SAARC and other regions too.

The dialogues also highlight the need for training Pakistani

journalists abroad, or through exposure trips which can be extremely

beneficial in broadening their horizons, and improving their

professional skills such as data collection, research, analysis,

objective presentation and balanced moderating, as well as gaining

new perspectives on globally important and emerging international

issues.

The following comments by some of the participants also underscore

the utility of media dialogues:

The Pak-German Media Dialogue shall hopefully become a regular annual feature and would further create better understanding between Pakistan and a strong European actor Germany:

Shah Mahmood Qureshi

former Foreign Minister

45

The media dialogue would result in better understanding for

senior journalists of both the countries „ Pakistan and

Germany:

Ahsan Iqbal Deputy Secretary-General PML-N

Federal Minister since June 2013

I returned to Germany well inspired and with a broadband of impressions and information. The openness of our discussions was impressive and rewarding. I didn't regret any of the many missed hours of sleep:

Theo Koll, Head of Political Section and

Current Affairs, ZDF TV, Mainz The discussions were frank and honest and that is how media people should discuss issues. Marcus Pindur set the tone of the proceedings by candidly and provocatively telling us how Pakistan is perceived in Germany. The dialogue was interesting and engaging:

Rahimullah

Yousufzai, Resident Editor The News, Peshawar

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the Pakistani-German media dialogue. I enjoyed the time with our dear Pakistani friends and colleagues very much. It provided me with a new and unique insight about your wonderful country that will surely have a positive impact on my work here in Germany:

Jan Marberg,

Deputy Editor of Federal German Army’s news magazine "Y"

46

The two-day interaction offered me insights into many

issues and I am grateful to Heinrich Böll Stiftung for that:

Ejaz Haider,

Security Analyst, Columnist and tv anchor It was a perfectly organised event:

Ines Zöttl,

In charge Foreign Affairs Financial Times, Berlin

Thanks for the opportunity. It was an enlightening session:

Farah Zia,

Editor, The News-on-Sunday, Islamabad It was a truly inspiring time. I am looking forward to continuing those discussions soon:

Daniel Dylan Böhmer, Pakistan Editor

daily Die Welt, Berlin I agree with what Shah Mahmood Qureshi has said that hopefully this dialogue will become a regular feature. I found the dialogue most helpful:

Omar Quraishi,

Editor Editorial Pages The Express Tribune, Karachi

Impressive days and discussions in Lahore:

Peter Riesbeck, Ressortleiter Politik,

daily Berliner Zeitung

47

Hats off to HBS both for excellent visualizing of such a conference and realizing it. Britta and her team did a commendable job while we are especially grateful to the German journalists for making it so special:

Naveed Ahmad

Investigative Journalist, Islamabad

48

Annexure I

Pakistani Media in Historical Perspective

At the time of independence in 1947, only four major newspapers

existed in the area now called Pakistan: Pakistan Times,

Zamindar, Nawa-i-Waqt, and the Civil and Military Gazette. A

number of other newspapers owned by Muslims re-located to

Pakistan from India, including the English language daily, Dawn,

which began publishing in Karachi in 1947, along with the Morning

News, and the Urdu-language dailies: Jang and Anjaam. By the

year 2000, 1,500 newspapers and journals were being published in

Pakistan, which dropped to 945 in 2003.

After the low point in 2003, however, the number of publications

grew again to 1,997 in 2005 but went down to 1,467 in 2006. This

number stood at around 1,820 in 2007, and declined to 1,199 in 2008 –

underscoring the precipitation that the print industry faces the world

over.

Pakistani newspapers and magazines are published in 11 languages;

mostly in Urdu and Sindhi, but English-language publications are

also numerous, albeit with low circulation figures. Most of the print

media are privately owned, but the government still runs and

controls the Associated Press of Pakistan (APP), one of the major

news agencies. From 1964 into the early 1990s, the National Press

Trust (NPT) acted as the governmental mechanism for controlling the

press. As of 2014, the state, however, no longer publishes daily

newspapers.

Understanding the Context

The evolution of the Pakistani print and electronic media, one must

bear in mind, is the fruit of decades of bold, sincere and committed

journalism of several selfless professional journalists. That is why a

look back into the political history of the country is unavoidable to

understand the political strains, organizational limitations and

49

professional shortcomings of the Pakistani media. For roughly 34

years out of the 67 years since its creation, the military has directly or

otherwise ruled Pakistan. This has had a direct bearing on the

evolution of democratic institutions and social behaviour as well as

on the media. The usual lack of, or less tolerance for difference of

opinion and aversion even to constructive criticism has been one of

the consequences of the military-led authoritarian rule, marked by

censorship and muzzling draconian laws. Consequently, the societal

tendencies have not been fully inclined towards accommodating

freedom of expression, pluralism and diversity.

Right from the start of Field Marshal General Ayub Khan’s capture of

political power in 1958, the media’s journey in Pakistan has been

uphill.

The Ayub decade was replete with instances where private sector

print media editors and journalists were imprisoned for criticising

the regime. Properties were confiscated, printing presses were

forcibly closed down, and trade unions were threatened, and even

banned. One way of gauging the “deviant voices” used to be the

cancellation of publication permission, i.e. the licences.

Following President Ayub Khan’s fall in 1968, his successor President

General Yahya Khan, too, imposed severe restrictions on the print

media.

The worst was yet to come. General Zia-ul-Haq, then Chief of Army

Staff, staged a military coup d’état in July 1977, ousted the elected

Prime Minister, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, and imposed martial law in the

country. Zia’s oppressive rule continued until August 1988, when his

airplane crashed in mysterious circumstances inside Pakistan.

During his tyrannical rule, Pakistan experienced the worst years of

brutal state oppression and obscurantism in the guise of

“Islamization”. Journalists were jailed, some publicly flogged for

dissent, and brutally tortured. Zia and his cronies took official

censorship of the media to new levels, forcing opposition newspapers

to leave blank spaces when army officials would not clear certain

news items. The state-controlled print and electronic media was not

different from the communist era European countries – where they

would always heap praise on the shrewd General and cover only

50

government activities, with no space for political dialogue, debate or

dissent.

Political parties, trade unions and students unions were banned.

History, Islamic Studies and Urdu language textbooks were re-written

to distort Muslim history, and to tailor it according to the narrow

vision that General Zia personified. He also enforced Islamic Sharia

laws through presidential decrees, in 1979 on issues such as

(Hudood) evidence (Shahadat), and compensation/settlement (for

murder), inter alia.

These decrees entailed devastating consequences for women and

non-Muslim minority communities of Pakistan. At the same time

they also underscored the shrinking space for a free media in the

oppressive environment.

Equally disastrous for the civil liberties and press freedom was the

USA- and Saudi-funded Afghan “jihad” against the former Soviet

Union in the 1980s, a partnership that opened floodgates to forces of

sectarianism, jihadism, extremism and terrorism from all over the

world.

During almost a decade of civilian rule after General Zia-ul-Haq’s

sudden demise in a plane crash in 1988, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz

Sharif took turns as Prime Minister. This also marked a relative

freedom for the media in general, more obvious in the Bhutto

tenures.

In October 1999, Pakistan witnessed another military coup, this time

by General Pervez Musharraf (then Chief of Army Staff), who deposed

Mian Nawaz Sharif, accusing him of corruption and gross misconduct

as the chief executive.

Unlike his predecessors, General Musharraf found himself

constrained on the one hand by an ever growing cyber age, and by an

unavoidable global proliferation of satellite tv on the other.

Driven by the desire for acceptance and international recognition as

a “liberal” General, Musharraf gave in to the growing chorus of

demands for free private electronic media in 2002, heralding thereby

the era of private satellite tv in Pakistan, which, as of 2014, has

51

become a vibrant and vocal voice, which no government can afford to

ignore or gag.

The state and extent of Pakistani electronic media’s freedom drew

admiring remarks even from the renowned US intellectual, Noam

Chomsky:

“I spent three weeks in India and a week in Pakistan. A friend of mine,

(Professor) Eqbal Ahmed, told me that I would be surprised to find

that the media in Pakistan is more open, free and vibrant than that in

India. In Pakistan, I listened to and read the media which go out to an

increasingly large part of the population. Apparently, the

government, no matter how repressive it is, is willing to say to them

that you have your fun; we are not going to bother you. So they don’t

interfere with it.”6

6

http://www.dawn.com/news/832878/how-the-indian-media-often-misses-the-cointelpro-angle, reported on Oct 25, 2010

52

The Current Situation of the Media in Pakistan

As a whole, the independent Pakistani electronic media has grown in

strength and size since liberalization in 2001 - from just three state-

owned and state-run tv channels in 2000 to almost 100 privately-

owned channels in 2014, according to the Pakistan Electronic Media

Regulatory Authority (PEMRA), a content watchdog. Nearly 100

private FM radio channels, beside a dozen or so state-owned AM and

FM channels also demonstrate the rapid growth of the electronic

media in Pakistan.

According to market surveys during 2013, the Geo News channel is

the market leader (among the private TV channels), with a 24%

market share, followed by Samaa (11.9%). In case of entertainment,

ARY Digital is leading the market with a share of 23.6% followed by

Urdu1 (20.4%). In the music category, 8XM is leading, with 63.3%,

followed by Play channel at 11.3%.

53

SoS

Data/Graphics’ Source: Aurora@dawn.comNovember-December 2013

54

With channels broadcasting in Urdu, Sindhi, Seraiki, Balochi, and

Pashto as well as English (PTV), the Pakistani electronic media is

clearly, aimed at the multi-linguistic, multi-ethnic, multi-sectarian,

and class-divided society. There, however, is a clear divide between

the Urdu and English language media. The Urdu language media,

particularly the newspapers, are widely read by the masses - mostly

in the rural areas, and are mostly right-leaning.

The English language media is mostly urban and elite-centric, and is

more progressive, liberal, secular and professional. The English print,

television and radio channels have far smaller audiences than their

Urdu counterparts, but yet they have disproportionately greater

leverage among the opinion makers, politicians, professionals, the

business community, and the upper income strata of society.

Pakistan's media sector is highly influenced by the ownership

structure. There are a few dominating media moguls, or large media

groups, which, to some extent, also have political affiliations. Due to

their dominance in both the print and electronic media these media

groups are very influential in politics and society.

While the concept and spirit of the media’s freedom of expression is

enshrined and protected in the Pakistan Constitution, Articles 19 and

19-A, a huge debate is raging – both within and beyond the media in

Pakistan – on the nature and quantum of freedom, in terms of the

media wanting unfettered licence vs. the necessity of certain

restrictions based on globally accepted Codes of Ethics and Conduct.

Never before until 2002 did the viewers get a chance to witness the

grilling of politicians, retired generals and bureaucrats live at the

hands of TV talk show hosts and anchors. Pakistani audiences were

not previously exposed to daring drama themes, music and fashion

shows. In a conservative milieu, whose foundations were laid during

the repressive Zia era, the electronic media, especially entertainment,

was expected to be compliant with traditional orthodox societal

norms.

Ever since the inception of privately-owned radio and television

channels in the new millennium, things have changed dramatically;

from news to politics to drama to fashion, the content has undergone

immense change. Views and opinions are expressed boldly in live

55

political talk shows and even once taboo topics are discussed during

prime time TV plays. TV anchors have created their own niches and

are able to often dictate their agendas the channel owners. Many

have a huge following, and thereby the possibility to influence them

too.

One of the manifestations of the shift via electronic media was seen

in the popular movement of lawyers and civil society for the

restoration of the independent judiciary (2007-09), when the

government was forced to restore the Chief Justice of Pakistan,

Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and his senior colleagues. The private

media, in tandem with lawyers, human rights activists and civil

society, mobilized public opinion to such an extent that the sustained

pressure forced the government to give in and back down. Most of

this went live on almost all private tv channels.

Code of Conduct?

However, unlike USA, Canada, or the European countries, Pakistani

electronic media lacks institutional structures, a well-defined and

self-imposed Code of Conduct and Ethics, along with a universally

accepted ratings system. Thus, tv channels at times behave recklessly

just to muster up ratings and boost commercials, and often this

happens at the cost of fundamental journalistic norms.

Such care-free, commercially-driven conduct at times also invites

reaction by institutions; the targeted attack, in April 2014, on the

Jang/Geo media group’s prominent journalist and anchorperson,

Hamid Mir, is a case in point. Within minutes of the incident, Mir’s

family held the head of the intelligence, i.e. Inter-Services

Intelligence (ISI) responsible for the attack. Geo TV quickly jumped in

to broadcast the claims, and for well over seven hours kept repeating

those claims, and prominently displayed the photograph of the ISI

chief with every related news.

The episode triggered a huge controversy and brought fresh strains

on the already tense civil-military-media relations. Within 48 hours,

several government officials and ministers, followed by the Prime

Minister, Mian Nawaz Sharif, visited injured Hamid Mir in his

Karachi hospital. This again generated more criticism, and

56

resentment, since over 100 journalists and media personnel have lost

their lives or have been injured seriously in similar targeted attacks in

a decade, yet no Prime Ministers, Chief Ministers or Ministers

showed this kind of concern.

More importantly, this also angered the military establishment as one

of its key leaders (the ISI chief) had been projected by Geo/Jang

group as the possible culprit. The military then unleashed its own

counter-offensive, using other tv channels for condemning Geo/Jang

group. It also petitioned Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory

Authority (PEMRA), asking it for punitive action against the private

media group for what the Ministry of Defense called “objectionable,

treasonous matter.” It also used indirect means to illegally get the

Geo TV off air in most of Pakistan.

Following several controversies and deep policy divisions between

the civil-military institutions, the Jang/Geo group eventually

backtracked and apologized when it was subjected to immense

pressure by PEMRA. Officially it was suspended for 15 days with a

Rs.10 million penalty, and resumed broadcasting on June 22, 2014.

As a whole, the entire episode also highlighted the need for self-

regulation and responsible journalism. Often, even small events are

blown out of proportion, or tv channels start acting as social

vigilantes. Reckless and thoughtless campaigns – essentially rooted in

commercialism – adorn tv screens, often disregarding the impact

they potentially can have on viewers.

The incident also exposed the tensions that accompany the civil-

military-media relationship. Besides, it also polarized the big media

houses, the primary driver being the commercial dividends that other

tv channels reaped off the Jang Geo-Military stand-off.

Journalists operating in dangerous environment

Journalists in Pakistan face multiple pressures, including those from

state institutions. Historically, it was the state power, which curbed

freedom of speech and attacked journalists. Now journalists are

under attack by non-state actors also. Dubbed the second most

dangerous country in the world for journalists after Mexico, Pakistan

57

has seen the killing of over 100 journalists since 2000. Of these 32

were shot dead, eight were kidnapped, three were beheaded and the

others died in suicide attacks. Most of the deaths occurred while

covering conflicts in the insecure tribal areas of Pakistan, (FATA),

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Balochistan and Karachi.

As many as ten journalists were killed in Pakistan in the year 2013,

earning the country the tag of being one of the world's deadliest five

countries for media personnel. Journalists in the troubled province of

Balochistan and the Tribal Areas were mainly the targets of

intimidation and violence with impunity sustaining the climate of

terror (data source: SAFMA).

Media freedom in Pakistan during 2013 also remained constrained by

the high levels of violence against tv media outlets like Express,

Independent News Pakistan (INP), ARY, Aaj, Geo and Dawn tv

channels.

A fatwa or religious edict naming certain Pakistani media houses and

journalists as “enemies of the Mujahedeen” was re-issued on 19

October, 2013 in the form of a post on Twitter, greatly increasing the

dangers to which they are already exposed.7

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) listed Pakistan as 151st out of the

178 countries ranked in its 2010 Press Freedom Index. It named

Pakistan as one of the "ten countries where it is not good to be a

journalist", stating:

“... in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Mexico, countries

either openly at war or in a civil war or some other kind of

internal conflict, we see a situation of permanent chaos and a

culture of violence and impunity taking root, in which the

press has become a favourite target. These are among the most

dangerous countries in the world, and the belligerents there

pick directly on reporters...”

7

http://www.southasianmedia.net/sam-monitors/monitor/south-asia-media-monitor-2012-story

58

Operational Hazards: Regulation, Censorship and

Commercialism

The Pakistani Constitution limits censorship in Pakistan, but allows

"reasonable restrictions in the interests of the sovereignty and

integrity of Pakistan or public order or morality". The armed forces,

intelligence agencies, laws and judiciary, and religion are topics that

frequently attract unwelcome attention from state institutions.

Ironically, both the state institutions as well as big media houses and

leading journalists interpret the constitutional limits on censorship,

and at times end up abusing it too. State institutions do so because of

what they perceive as national or security interests. Sections of the

media – both print and electronic – at times abuse the liberties

available to them because they think they would get away with it in

the name of media freedom.

Both act in disregard of the bitter reality that absolute control of, or

absolute freedom of the media practically exists nowhere in the

world.

Critique of Media Trends in Pakistan

The media in Pakistan can take pride in the fact that it is relatively free and

carries out its public watchdog functions with great energy, but some

negative trends must, however, be highlighted, simply in the interest of a

better future.

In displays of courage and chivalry, at times journalists get carried

away and do not put events in perspective. The hallmark of today’s

electronic media is the prime time live talk shows on various tv news

channels. In a bid to gain higher viewership levels, a large number of

TV anchorpersons resort to all sorts of sensationalist tactics to stir up

controversies without accountability or responsibility. As a result of

this unbridled pursuit of popularity, most audiences are left baffled,

since they are not provided with research, data, or any incisive

analysis or conclusive thoughts.

1) A lot of “analysis” by TV anchors is offered on various functions of

the State but there is apparently very little research backing this

59

activity. The practice of getting political figures with opposing

views to clash, and calling it “analysis”, is simply inadequate if not

downright wrong and unethical. The electronic media needs to

hire technical experts, instead of using non-expert political

figures simply to save money, or to increase viewership. As an

owner of a TV channel honestly admitted privately, most TV

anchors are provided only with the daily news on which to base

their discussions.

2) The TV channels and the Urdu press need to discuss the problem

of terrorism, extremism and sectarianism in a balanced manner.

Opinions purveyed in the Urdu language press still demonstrate

an ideological bias and an apologist tendency towards the

elements promoting and carrying out militancy and violence.

Because of the TV anchors' own vulnerability to punitive action by

the terrorists/extremists, many or most of them develop an

excessive reactionary tendency to attack the progressive, liberal

elements who dare to speak out against terrorism, extremism and

sectarianism. A large number of anchors hold the same militant,

isolationist and narrow religious narrative as the one more

vociferously pleaded by the extremists. Despite ample empirical

evidence and the daily killing of innocent people, and attacks on

worship places, schools, markets and most sensitive national

security installations, many media-persons tend to obfuscate the

reality with their speculative presentations, portrayal and

conspiracy theories.

3) Isolationism while discussing foreign policy and internal events

having international impact, like the attack on Malala Yousafzai,

results in confusion, conspiracy theories and farfetched linkages

to the war on terror. The moral, social and political consensus

needed on such occasions, was thus undermined and the Taliban,

who audaciously publicly claimed the responsibility for the

ghastly act, were allowed to get away with their incorrigible

standpoint with impunity, despite a huge moral loss of the

A lot of analysis by TV anchors is offered on various

functions of the State but there is apparently very

little research backing this activity.

60

militant outfit. Even the positive role of the UN regarding

promotion of girls’ education, was cast in a bad light by some of

the more orthodox discussants and presenters.

4) The democratically elected government was exposed to a regular

assault in the name of “accountability” by certain TV anchors,

who chose to take sides in the discussions on their own talk

shows. The adage of “adversarial relationship” was taken too far,

which exposed the media to accusations of being anti-elected

governments, which still remained under the obligation to

provide the media an even playing field, and to continue to

respect media freedoms and rights.

5) The media inexpertly handled the “activism” of the superior

judiciary and failed in its duty to be non-partisan in hosting

informed debate and discourse; particularly on some of the

judgements that were more populist and political in nature and

created sharp divisions even among the legal community. It

accepted without demur the judicial intervention in setting

standards of “morality and piety” in the media, by curtailing

entertainment after renaming it “obscenity”. No objective

analysis was made of the inadequacy of the subjective definition

of “obscenity” in a state where people needed entertainment

while endangered by terrorism and suffocated by obscurantism.

Reporters were allowed undue licence while expounding their

own political views, in violation of the ethics of political neutrality

and nonpartisanship of the media.

61

6) Inadequately researched and misinformed debate was attempted

on such matters as price-fixing by the judiciary after an early

government failure at fixing the price of sugar. The politicians

were pilloried needlessly on the question of oil pricing, while it

was obvious that the oil/gasoline prices were pegged to

international prices and their being lowered disproportionately to

the international exchange value would be disastrous for the

country - through higher consumption and unsustainable state

subsidies. Even the newscasters were allowed to use such emotive

terms as “mehngai ka bomb gira diya” (“the bomb of higher prices

has been dropped”) when the prices of imported fuels went up.

Nowhere was media dereliction more observed than in refusing to

acknowledge that reduction of the government subsidy was

important for the survival of the fragile economy.

62

7) The media also erred by not first inquiring into the definition of

the term before accusing successive governments of “bad

governance”. No distinction was made about the corruption

inherent in the system and its auxiliary personalized variant. No

comparison was made in relative terms between governance in

the past and governance under conditions of civil war, duress,

internal fragmentation and polarization. No doubt the private

media should have exposed corruption wherever they found

undeniable evidence, but the issue of corruption became an

instrument in the hands of unscrupulous elements for

mudslinging on the basis of speculation and rumours.

8) The topic of ratings is already bringing negative returns to the

media in the shape of viewer cynicism. The biggest flaw in the

media is the practice of sensationalism and it is not restricted only

to the exaggeration of crime stories through re-enactments. Every

act of the government, civil society and well-known personalities

is brought under sensational focus, and events are depicted as an

outrage against the “accepted norms of decency”. Almost all news

items are subject to this sensationalism. This applies particularly

to such events as alleged insults to religion and desecration of

holy relics by vulnerable people and communities that cannot

defend themselves. But there is inadequate media focus when the

same outrage is committed against the religious minorities, e.g.,

the bombing of a Christian church in Peshawar in September

63

2013, or the Rimsha Masih false blasphemy case in Islamabad.

9) Unfortunately, the blackmailing aspects of some TV anchors have

come to light and the viewing public has been afforded the sad

opportunity to see the phenomenon live on screen. But instead of

being subjected to accountability, the offenders have been

rewarded with better contracts by rival media groups, in

contravention of the voluntary Codes of Ethics and Conduct.

10) Quite ironically, sections of the media are now in the forefront of

imposing various kinds of restrictions and censorship on the

media on subjectively defined “ideological” and “cultural”

grounds, negating the concepts of pluralism and diversity.

Unfortunately, the blackmailing aspects of some TV

anchors have come to light and the viewing public has

been afforded the sad opportunity to see the

phenomenon live on screen. But instead of being

subjected to accountability the offenders have been

rewarded with better contracts by rival media groups.

64

Some Media-Related Bodies

Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority

(PEMRA)

PEMRA was established under the PEMRA Ordinance (law) 2002 to

facilitate and regulate the private electronic media. It has the

mandate to improve the standards of information, education and

entertainment, and to enlarge the choices available to the people of

Pakistan, including news, current affairs, religious knowledge,

entertainment, art and culture, sports, as well as science and

technology.

All Pakistan Newspapers Society (APNS)

The All Pakistan Newspapers Society is a premier body of newspaper

publishers, founded in 1953 with a view to facilitate the exchange of

their views on matters of common interest among newspaper owners

and to take common positions on those issues. The APNS successfully

afforded to newspaper owners the means to watch over, protect,

preserve and promote the rights and interests of the newspaper

industry on matters directly or indirectly affecting their rights and

interests. It became a force to be reckoned with in the publishing and

advertising world and laid down rules of conduct for member

publications as well as the advertising agencies.

The APNS works as a bridge between the newspapers and the

advertising agencies and has grown rapidly as a representative body

of newspapers and magazines all over the country; in 1971 only about

41 publications were its members, whereas its membership has risen

to 402 in 2014, many of them being newspapers and weekly

magazines from small towns all over Pakistan.

65

In 1999, the APNS prepared a set of press laws including the Draft for

the formation of a Press Council in Pakistan, Registration of Printing

Presses, and Newspapers Ordinance and a draft Freedom of

Information Act. After thorough discussions among the APNS, CPNE

and the Ministry of Information, the drafts on the Press Council and

the Registration of Presses and Newspapers were finalized and

enacted in 2002.

The APNS is recognized by the International Newspapers community

and was accepted as a member by the World Association of

Newspapers in 2009.

Council of Pakistan Newspaper Editors (CPNE)

The Council of Pakistan Newspaper Editors (CPNE) has worked since

its foundation in 1957 as the representative body of Newspaper

Editors in Pakistan, to campaign for the defence of press freedoms

and the right of access to information in the service of democratic

practice and the strengthening of democratic institutions in the

country. The members of this prestigious organization of the

newspaper Editors have also formulated and voluntarily adopted a

Code of Ethics, which lays down the norms for maintaining the

dignity and non-partisan nature of the print media, along with the

professional high standards of its member publications, in respect of

the publishing of news, views, comments and analysis.

Pakistan Broadcasters Association (PBA)

The Pakistan Broadcasters Association (PBA) has been set up

to offer optimum advantage to all stakeholders of the media

industry – the media broadcast houses, the advertising agencies, and

advertisers alike. Even though all the issues the industry is facing are

not common, yet they all feel the impact in one way or another.

A system-operated Clearance House makes it imperative for the

advertisers to pay their dues in the stipulated time to avoid any

inconvenience of disruption in telecasting of their advertisements.

Besides the broadcast houses, it provides some protection to the

66

advertising agencies and the media buying houses against situations

that could arise out of default in payments.

Media Logic, a company with working affiliations with the top of the

line international players in the field of media research, has been

entrusted with the task of TAM - Television Audience Measurement.

TV channels’ rating reports from three metropolitan cities – Karachi,

Lahore and Rawalpindi – are presently available, while expansion is

planned for four other cities – Peshawar, Bahawalpur, Faisalabad and

Sukkur.

Besides this, other research tools, such as content audit, programme

feedback, and measuring viewer involvement index, are also being

examined by the PBA, with a view to being introduced in the near

future.

Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ)

The Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (often referred to as the

PFUJ) is the first journalistic association of South Asia, representing

journalists of the entire country. The PFUJ was established in 1950

and is affiliated with the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ).

The PFUJ is an independent body, having its own constitution,

accountability process and a Code to check journalists and their

work.

67

Annexure II

Media in Germany

The media in Germany consists of several different types of

communications media including television, radio, cinema,

newspapers, magazines, and the internet. Many of the media are

controlled by large for-profit corporations, reaping revenue from

advertising, subscriptions, and the sale of copyrighted material.

The German Constitution stipulates that the sole responsibility for

broadcasting rests with the Länder of the Federal Republic as part of

their "cultural sovereignty". Because of this, the public service

broadcasters are a creation of the Länder. They act individually or

jointly (in agreements). The exception is the broadcaster Deutsche

Welle, based on federal legislation, designed to provide services

(radio, TV, online) to foreign countries only. The traditional public

service broadcaster is set up as an independent and non-commercial

organization, financed primarily by public licence fees.

State Regulation and Censorship in Germany

The Federal Republic of Germany guarantees freedom of speech,

expression, and opinion to its citizens as per Article 5 of the

Constitution. Despite this, censorship of various materials has taken

place since the western Allied occupation after World War II and

continues to take place in Germany in various forms, due to a limiting

provision in Article 5, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution.

According to the Reporters without Borders (RSF) Press Freedom

Index, Germany is currently ranked 17th in the world in terms of

press freedom.

During the Allied occupation of Germany, the media was controlled

by the occupying forces. The policy rationales differed among the

occupying powers, but there was resentment in literary and

journalistic circles in many parts of the country. “Undesired” publishing

efforts were unilaterally blocked by the occupying forces.

68

Since the publication of the German Grundgesetz, there have been

two kinds of censored media in Germany. The first is material that is

considered “offensive” or “indecent”. Such media are placed on the

"Index" and restricted in their publication, and distribution to minors

is illegal.

The second is material that is considered “anti-Constitutional” or

“dangerous to the State”. The underlying concept is "Streitbare

Demokratie" (self-defending democracy), that legally hinders the rise

of all anti-Constitutional and thus undemocratic movements. The

concerned media are banned outright, with criminal penalties for

infringements. An example is the outright ban on material which

supports National Socialism.

In May 1949, the German Grundgesetz, the new Constitution, was

passed and control of West Germany passed officially into German

hands. The Freedom of Expression is granted by Article 5, with

certain limits:

1. “Every person shall have the right freely to express and

disseminate his opinions in speech, writing, and pictures and to

inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible

sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means

of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no

censorship.

2. “These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general

laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the

right to personal honour.

3. “Art and scholarship, research, and teaching shall be free. The

freedom of teaching shall not release any person from allegiance

to the Constitution.”

69

Media Landscape of Germany

Germany has a very wide range of print media. During the years of

the Nazi rule the mass media had become a tool of the regime. In

1945 the media experienced an "hour zero" and started nearly

completely anew. The post-war media system was based on the

principle of press freedom as stipulated in the Constitution of

Germany adopted in 1949.

There are approximately 354 newspapers in Germany. Together with

local editions, there are 1,512 different newspapers. Since the early

1990s, the number and circulation of newspapers in Germany has

shown signs of a decline. National Newspapers include BILD,

Süddeutsche Zeitung, Frankfurter Allegemeine Zeitung, Welt,

Frankfurter Rundschau and Tages Zeitung.

There are over 500 radio stations in Germany. Radio stations are

licenced by media authorities in individual states, a result of

Germany's federal structure.

With almost 40 million TV households, with 365 TV channels licenced

in Germany and a total market volume of € 9,615 million, Germany

represents one of the biggest and most diversified TV markets in the

world. The strongest revenue segment in Germany is public funding

(€4,430 approximately), followed by advertising (€4,035 million) and

subscription (€1,150 million). This dominant market position of the

public sector and ad-funded free TV channels in Germany explains

why the German pay-TV segment is significantly underperforming in

an international comparison.

70

In terms of total TV viewing market share, Germany's market leaders

are ARD with 12.7% and ZDF with 12.5% and the two leading

commercial channels (RTL with 12.5% and Sat.1 with 10.4%). The

leading pay TV provider is Premiere, which was renamed Sky

Germany in early 2010. The biggest teleshopping providers in

Germany are QVC and HSE24.

With 19.8 million TV households, cable is still the dominant TV

infrastructure in Germany, followed by satellite (15.7 million TV

households) and terrestrial (4.2 million TV households).

71

Freedom of Expression in Germany

According to Index on Censorship/21 August 2013, the situation with

regard to freedom of expression in Germany is largely positive.

Freedom of expression is protected by the German Constitution and

basic laws. However, there is room for improvement, with Germany’s

hate speech and libel laws being particularly severe.

Germany’s biggest limits on freedom of expression are due to its strict

hate speech legislation which criminalises any incitement to violence

or hatred. Germany has particularly strict laws on the promotion or

glorification of Nazism, or Holocaust denial with paragraph 130(3) of

the German Criminal Code stipulating that those who “publicly or in

an assembly approve, deny, or trivialize” the Holocaust are liable to

up to five years in prison or a monetary fine. Hate speech also

extends to insulting segments of the population or a national, racial

or religious group, or one characterised by its ethnic customs.

Germany has strict provisions in the Criminal Code providing

penalties for defamation of the President, insulting the Federal

Republic, its states, the flag, and the national anthem. However, in 2000,

the Federal Constitutional Court stated that even harsh political

criticism, however unjust, does not constitute insulting the Republic.

The criminal code however remains in place.

Freedom of religious expression is regulated through anti-blasphemy

laws criminalizing “offences related to religion and ideology”.

Paragraph 166 of the Criminal Code prohibits defamation against “a

church or other religious or ideological association within Germany,

or their institutions or customs”. While very few people (just 10) have

been convicted under the blasphemy legislation since 1969, the

impact of hate speech legislation is seen more frequently, in

particular in the prosecution of religious offences.

72

In 2006, a pensioner in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia was given

a one-year suspended sentence for printing ‘The Holy Koran’ on

toilet paper, and sending it to 22 mosques and Muslim community

centres. In 2011, 9 of the 18 operators of the far right online radio

programme ‘Resistance Radio’ were given between 21 months and

three years in prison for inciting hatred.

Germany has also seen heated debates over a widespread ban on

religious symbols in public workplaces, especially affecting Muslim

women who wear headscarves, which limits, as a result, their

freedom of religious expression. Half of Germany’s 16 states have, to

various extents, banned teachers and civil servants from wearing

religious symbols at work. Yet this is not applied equally to all

religions, as five states have made exceptions for Christian religious

symbols.

73

Media Freedom in Germany

Government and political interference in the German media

continues to raise concerns for media independence, with several

incidents of interventions by politicians attempting to influence

editorial policy. In 2009, Nikolaus Brender, the Chief Editor of a

public service broadcaster, ZDF, had his contract terminated by a

board featuring several politicians from the ruling Christian

Democratic Union.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) labelled it a “blatant violation of the

principle of independence of public broadcasters”. In 2011, the editor

of Bild, the country’s biggest newspaper, received a voicemail

message from President Christian Wulff, who threatened “war” on the

tabloid, which reported an unusual personal loan he received.

Media plurality is strong among regional newspapers, though due to

financial pressures, media plurality declined in 2009 and 2010.

Germany has one of the most concentrated TV markets in Europe,

with 82% of total TV advertising spending shared among just 2 main

TV stations in Germany. This gives a significant amount of influence to

just 2 broadcasters and the majority of Germans still receive their daily

news from the television.

The legal framework for the media is generally positive, with

accessible public interest defence for journalists in the law of privacy

and defamation. However, Germany still has criminal provisions in

its defamation law, which, although unused, remains in the penal

code. Germany’s civil defamation law is medium-to-low-cost, in

comparison with other European jurisdictions. It places the burden

of proof on the claimant (a protection to freedom of expression) and

contains a responsible journalism defence, although not a broader

public interest defence.

Digital Media

The digital sphere in Germany has remained relatively free, with

judicial oversight over the content takedown, protections for online

74

privacy, and a high level of internet penetration (83% of Germans are

online).

Germany’s Federal Court of Justice has ruled that access to the

internet is a basic right in modern society. Section 184-b of the

German Penal Code states that “it is a criminal offence to

disseminate, publicly display, present or otherwise make accessible

any pornographic material showing sexual activities performed by,

on or in the presence of a child”.

Germany has also ratified and put into the law the Council of

Europe’s Convention on Cyber Crimes since 2001. Mobile operators

also signed up to a Code of Conduct in 2005, which includes a

commitment to a dual system of identification and authentication to

protect children from harmful content. This was reaffirmed and made

binding in 2007.

There are concerns over the increased use of surveillance of online

communications, especially since a new anti-terrorism law took

effect in 2009.

In 2011, German authorities acquired the licence for a type of

spyware called FinSpy, produced by the British Gamma Group. This

spyware can bypass anti-virus software and can extract data from the

device it is targeting. Two reports by the German Parliamentary

Control Panel, from 2009 and 2010, stated that several German

intelligence units had monitored emails, with the amount of

surveillance increasing from 7 million items in 2009 to 37 million

items in 2010.

However, Germany’s Constitutional Court ruled that intelligence

agencies are only allowed to collect data secretly from suspects’

computers if there is evidence that human lives or state property are

in danger and the authorities must get a court order before they

secretly upload spyware to a suspect’s computer.

Germany’s tough hate-speech legislation also affects free speech

online. In January 2012, Twitter adopted a new global policy allowing

the company to delete tweets if countries request it, meaning that

tweets become subject to Germany’s hate-speech laws. The latest

Twitter Transparency report states that the German government

75

agencies asked for just 2 items to be removed. In October 2012,

Twitter also blocked the account of a far-right German group, Better

Hannover, after a police investigation.

76

Annexure II

List of Participants 2011

Pakistani Journalists

SR# Name Name of the paper 1. Abbas Rashid Freelance journalist and political analyst,

Lahore

2. Cyril Almeida Columnist, analyst and editorial writer ,Dawn, Islamabad

3. Ejaz Haider Consulting Editor of Friday Times, Lahore

4. Farah Zia Journalist / Editor Karachi, The News on Sunday

5. Imtiaz Alam Journalist and Secretary General of South Asian Free Media Association, Lahore

6. Khaled Ahmed Political analyst, journalist, author, Lahore

7. Naveed Ahmad Investigative Journalist/Academic Islamabad

8. Omar R Quraishi Editor, Editorial/Opinion The Express Tribune, Karachi

9. Saida Fazal Resident Editor Business Recorder, Lahore

10. Shehar Bano Khan Journalist, Development and Media, Lahore (based in Landon).

11. Prof.Dr. Shahjehan Prof of Journalism and Mass Communication Peshawar,

12. Saba Imtiaz Reporter/Journalist at Express Tribune ,Karachi

13. Urooj Zia Freelance journalist Karachi

77

GERMAN JOURNALISTS

SR# Name Name of the paper 1. Ines Zöttl Incharge, Foreign Affairs, Financial Times

Deutschland, Berlin

2. Jan Ross Coordinator Foreign Affairs, DIE ZEIT, Hamburg

3. Heike Vowinkel Deputy Head of the Ressort Reports, WELT AM SONNTAG, Berlin

4. Peter Riesbeck Head of politics, BERLINER ZEITUNG, Berlin

5. Daniel Bax Incharge, Editorial/Opinion, Die Tageszeitung, Berlin)

6. Jan Marberg Chief Editor, Magazine of the German Army

7. Marcus Pindur Editor Background, DEUTSCHLANDRADIO, Berlin

8. Daniel Dylan Boehmer

Editor incharge of Pakistan and Afghanistan DIE WELT

9. Dirk Benninghoff Editor News, weekly Stern.de , Berlin

10. Sabina Matthay Correspondent, German Public TV station ARD, New Delhi

11. Cem Sey Correspondent, Turkish Newspaper TARAF, Berlin

12. . Theo Koll ZDF, Auslandsjournal

GUEST SPEAKERS:

SR# Name Details 1. Shah Mehmood

Qureshi Former Foreign Minister and Member of National Assembly, Pakistan People’s Party

2. Senator Syeda Abida Hussain

Former Minister and Ambassador to the US, Pakistan People’s Party

78

3. Prof. Ahsan Iqbal Deputy Secretary General and Member of National Assembly, Pakistan Muslim League-N

4. Hasham Baber Additional Secretary General, Awami National Party

5. Dr. Michael Koch German Ambassador

List of Participants 2014

Pakistani Journalists

SR.# Name Name of the Paper 1. Imtiaz Gul

Security Analyst and Executive Director of Centre for Research and Security Studies, Islamabad.

2. Sami Abrahim

Senior Analyst for Dunya TV , Islamabad

3. Moeed Peerzada

Political commentator, journalist, and TV, Islamabad

4. Iqbal Khattak

Journalist and the Executive Director of Freedom Network, Peshawar.

5. Omar Qureshi

Editor, Editorial/Opinion, The Express Tribune, Karachi

6. Nargis Baloch

First Baloch woman editor of Urdu-language Daily Intekhab,

Quetta.

7. Shehzada Zulfiqar

Senior Pakistani journalist from Quetta.

8. Zahid Hussain

Senior editor with Newsline, DAWN and a correspondent for The Times of London, Newsweek and The Wall Street Journal, based in Islamabad.

9. Rahimullah Yousufzai

Senior Pakistani journalist, Resident Editor The News, Peshawar.

10. Nadeem Malik

Journalist / TV Anchor Islamabad.

79

11. Marianna Babar Journalist from The News, Islamabad.

GERMAN JOURNALISTS

SR.# Name Name of the Paper

1. Friederike Boege

Political Editor, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Frankfurt

2. Sven Hansen

Editor Asia, Die Tageszeitung, Berlin, Germany.

3. Silke Mertins

Freelance journalist Foreign- and Security Policy, Berlin

4. Nicola Vitense-Likat Senior Producer, Second German Television ZDF, Singapore

5. Ingrid Mueller

Senior Editor Der Tagesspiegel, Berlin

6. Sylke Tempel

Editor-in-Chief, Internationale Politik, Berlin

7. Hasnain Kazim

Correspondent for Turkey and Pakistan weekly Der Spiegel, Istanbul, Turkey.

8. Norbert Staeblein

Magazine of the German Federal Army “Y”, Berlin.

9. Willi Germund

Asia Correspondent, Berliner Zeitung, Bangkok

10. Cem Rifat Sey

Correspondent T24, Istanbul; and Contributer Deutschlandradio, Deutsche Welle, Kabul

11. Carsten Luther

Editor International Politics, ZEIT online, Berlin

12. Daniel-Dylan Boehmer

Editor for Pakistan and Afghanistan Die Welt, Berlin

13. Gabor Halasz

Senior Correspondent First German Television ARD, New Delhi, India.

80

AFGHAN GUESTS

SR.# Name Name of the Paper

1. 1. Wazhma Frogh

Co-founder & Executive Director of Research Institute for Women Peace & Security Afghanistan

2. Huma Naseri

Journalist- (Hasht-o-sobh), Afghanistan

3. HUMAYUN SHAH ASEFI Politician, Kabul

GUEST SPEAKERS

SR.# Name Details 1. Dr. Cyril Nunn German Ambassador

2. Sherry Rehman

Member of National Assembly- Pakistan People’s Party-PPP, journalist, former Ambassador to the US, former Federal Minister for Information and Broadcasting

3. Maj. Gen. Asim Saleem Bajwa

Director General Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR)

4. Mr. Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhry

Additional Foreign Secretary and Spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan

5. Lt. Gen (R) Talat Masood

Retired engineer officer of the Pakistan Army Corps of Electrical & Mechanical Engineering (EME).

6. Hussain Naqi

Senior Journalist and National Coordinator of Human Rights Commission of Lahore, Pakistan

7. Bushra Gohar

Vice President of Awami National Party, Peshawar, KP and Member of the National Assembly.

8. Senator Afrasiab Khattak

Writer, human rights activist and Provincial President of Awami National Party-ANP, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

81

9. Danyal Aziz, MNA, PML-N

Politician and Member of National Assembly from Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N)

10. Faisal Subzwari Politician and Member of National Assembly from Mohajir Qoumi Movement-MQM, Karachi

11. Hafi

Hafiz Muhammad Tahir Mahmood Ashrafi

Chairman Pakistan Ulema Council.

12. Rasul Buksh Rais Political analyst and head of Political Science Department at LUMS, Lahore

13. Prof. Dr. Shahjehan Syed

Mediothek, Media House, Peshawar

82