“Today I wanted to talk with you about an important issue that has sparked much discussion: the press law.” With these words, the President of the Republic, Mr. Sali Berisha, opened the press conference held on Monday, 18 October, at 11 a.m., in one of the halls of the Presidency. Before the journalists, Mr. Berisha presented a number of arguments supporting the wording of this law and the need for it to exist. Mr. Berisha also explained some of the issues raised concerning the press law. Afterwards, President Berisha made himself available to the journalists, as is customary on such occasions. “RD” correspondent

At the invitation of the chairman of the Austrian People’s Party and Vice-Chancellor Erhard Busek, an Albanian parliamentary delegation headed by the chairman of the DPD and the chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Policy, Mr. Eduard Selami, left for Austria yesterday. Among the confirmed meetings with prominent figures in Austrian politics, we highlight the meeting with Dr. Alois Mock, chairman of the European Democratic Union (EDU) and Austrian Foreign Minister. Press and Information Office of the DPD

FROM THE PRESS CONFERENCE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC, MR. SALI BERISHA First, I want to emphasize that, with regard to press laws, democratic countries can be grouped into: 1. Countries that have no press law. These are evolutionary democracies, such as the USA, Great Britain, etc. But even these countries have specific amendments that protect the rights of publishers, property, human dignity and information. 2. The other countries—which includes almost all the countries of Western Europe—have a press law, and this law does not restrict freedom of the press, information or expression of opinion. All these countries have signed the European Convention on Human Rights. The press is free in these countries too. Their laws are fully consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights and their democratic constitutions. Thus, today, if we look at them in relation to press laws, there are two fully democratic realities: one with press laws, which is the case in most states, and the other without press laws. Let us now turn to the Albanian reality. Personally, I have said, and say again, that I have favored a reality without press laws. But in all the discussions I have had—even often with journalists in this hall and elsewhere, and then with ordinary citizens, politicians and members of parliament—I have clearly understood that my view has been in the minority. This factor, together with the other, highly uncertain finding from the Gallup study, which indicates that 75–80 percent of people in Albania do not trust the Albanian press, compels me to join the majority. To this end, knowing that a press law is an extremely delicate law, I sought the assistance of several international institutions. The Ebert Foundation of the German Social Democrats and the Know How Fund of Great Britain proved willing to help us, and I am very grateful to them. The Ebert Foundation brought the ex- [?] One position fully approves the press law. These journalists believe that this law does not restrict press freedom and consider it essential for protecting the dignity of the individual, which has been injured repeatedly and day after day by the press; they consider it essential for restoring the press’s fallen prestige and transforming it into a powerful pillar of democracy in Albania. The second position is categorically opposed to the press law. Some in this category oppose it because they favor the model of democracy without press laws, that is, the American or British model, but I assure them that this position has no support in Albania; it is in the minority. The other opponents of the law are individuals who, just as they have opposed all the laws passed to date—including the Charter of Human Rights and laws on private property, etc.—also oppose the press law. There is no doubt that, for them, we should have had only the old laws. I urge them to understand that Albania has, and will continue to have, a need for new laws. On the basis of opposition to this law, the left-wing newspapers, led by «ZP», announced a two-day strike. There is a paradox here—not because they went on strike, since a strike in a free society is lawful, but because they went on strike against a law that aims to enhance the prestige of the press; above all, however, democracy must be understood as human dignity. The Albanian press has lost its credibility not only because of its relationship with the truth, but also because, in hundreds and thousands of cases, it has violated human dignity. Albania today has lost [?] the greatest number of private newspapers per capita. The press law does not in any way aim to restrict their freedom; rather, it aims to improve the press’s relationship with the truth and to protect human dignity from slander and humiliation, which do no honor to anyone. Besides these two positions, there is also a third position that approves the law but expresses reservations, which I think are based mainly on misunderstandings of meaning. Some of them have written articles that I have read carefully; others have written to me. Here I will try to provide some explanations that I consider necessary to clarify the misunderstandings that have arisen. Let us briefly examine them: —It is said that they would vote for this law if an article on private radio and television were included. The press law concerns editorial offices and publishers of printed material, which is why it is called that. The media law is entirely separate and unrelated to it. I fully agree that that law should be passed by Parliament. Personally, I have given my approval for VOA and BBC, and have also offered DW the opportunity to broadcast on our frequencies—these are radio stations that we do not control. Second, the issue of information has been raised. The draft submitted to Parliament says: “Official bodies are obliged to provide representatives of the press with information that will assist them in carrying out their public duties.” All the exceptions Others have raised the issue of confiscation. First, I want to [incomplete in source]. … strike. There is a paradox here, not because they went on strike—since a strike in a free society is a normal phenomenon—but because they rose up against a law presented by the Institute of German Social Democracy. The Albanian left is categorical and does not agree with the German centre-left on this point. I cannot imagine that an institute of German social democracy would agree to restrict the press freedoms of the Albanian left. On the contrary, I am convinced that the Ebert Stiftung has wanted, and continues to want, the development of Albanian democracy. The truth is, however, that the reaction of the left-wing press stems not from concern about the curtailment of press freedom, but from a tendency to politicize everything trivial, every new law passed by our Parliament. This is a syndrome that reflects their domination by totalitarian logic and psychology, from which I hope they will free themselves as soon as possible. Today, this press should [?] individuals in the same way as it once praised the dictatorship for everything and created the myth and cult of its perpetual success; now, liberated, it criticizes everything. Today, there are quite a few left-wing newspapers with no article at all praising or positively assessing developments over the past 18 months, and which continue to wage psychological terror against people. From yesterday’s fiery singers of the dictatorship’s permanent success, they have turned into pitiful mourners of democracy’s imaginary defeat today. I think all this has greatly diminished the role of the press. They may think that by criticizing everything they contribute to democracy and may measure the value of their newspapers by how many copies they sell, but they are mistaken, because serious studies such as Gallup’s show that trust in the press in Albania is the lowest in Eastern Europe. The right to information is the right to the truth. Therefore, only information that tells the truth and properly uses the opportunities created by freedom serves democracy, its promotion and development. It is true that in democratic countries with developed democracies, the press is a powerful force, but it has achieved and continues to achieve this only through its commitment to the truth, its discovery, protection and advancement. In this regard, I want to ask what role and power a press that 80 percent of the population does not trust can claim to have. This is an extremely significant indicator. ordinary citizens, parliamentarians; in my opinion, I was in the minority. This factor, together with the other very unwelcome fact emerging from the Gallup survey, which shows the Albanian press, compels me to engage with the majority in this discussion. For this purpose, knowing that press law is an extremely delicate matter, I sought the help of several international institutions. Among them, Know How Fund of Great Britain were willing to help us, for which I am very grateful. The Ebert Foundation provided translations into Albanian of two press laws, and we chose the law of North Rhine-Westphalia, last revised in 1985. I can tell you that we chose this law for the following reasons: 1. Germany is a country with a distant dictatorial past and a great democratic present; 2. Germany has one of the Constitutional Courts with among the strongest powers in Europe. I am convinced that it would not tolerate laws that conflict with German constitutional law. 3. The German press is the free press of a free country, which means that the law fully complies with the German Charter of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. Having studied it very carefully and consulted specialists, I also conclude that this law fully complies with the Albanian Charter of Human Rights and therefore seemed suitable to me as a press law for Albania. Someone might ask: why are we adopting a German law—are we not Albanians? I would say that we have followed this course with all our laws. We have followed this practice with the constitutional laws, the Charter of Human Rights, and the laws on banks, investment, and privatization; the time has finally come to an end when we walked through the forest in complete darkness while claiming to be Europe’s shining beacon. Gentlemen, we will now adapt the legislative experience and laws of those who built democracy before us. There are no longer any specific conditions or unknown paths. Following the model of democratic countries, we will build our institutions. It is precisely for the reasons stated above that the law is being submitted to Parliament. Apart from the text, I emphasize that the press law is simply a law for editorial offices and publishers, and not at all for journalists or the authors of articles who are not editors. I want to stress that, in an important respect, this law not only does not restrict press freedom, but expands it, since it abolishes licensing, which, after censorship, is the most powerful tool for controlling the press. But also, since publishers have not lodged any protest so far—apparently because they have understood that it is useful and not harmful to them—there are currently three positions among Albanian newspapers: ... In Germany, as grounds for opposing this law, the left-wing newspapers, led by “ZP,” declared a two-day on strike—for because they rose up against a law put forward by the German Social Democracy Institute. The Albanian left is categorical and, on this point, does not agree with the German centre-left. left. On the contrary, I am convinced that of Albanian democracy. But the truth is concern about curtailing press freedom, but from a tendency to politicize every banal matter, as possible. Today, this press should behave everlasting a few left-wing newspapers with not a single appreciative or positive article about exert psychological terror on people. From singers of praise for the yesterday’s dictatorship’s everlasting success, they have turned into pitiful mourners of today’s democracy’s imaginary defeat.

Question: The opposition has often called for early parliamentary elections. This is a permanent demand of theirs. What is your assessment? Answer: General elections in Albania will be held in the autumn of 1996. But we do not believe the opposition’s demands… (Continued on page 6)

Question: What is your opinion of the elections in Greece, and will the change in the balance of forces in government have a significant effect on relations with Albania? Answer: First, in all free elections, democracy is what wins. The Greek people, with their free vote, voted not for the parties in power but for the opposition. The reasons for the defeat must be analyzed. We hope that, with the change in the balance of forces in government, we will increase cooperation with Greece on the basis of non-interference in internal affairs, full respect for the sovereignty and integrity of our countries, and mutual benefit. I want to say that I have no prejudice; on the contrary, two years ago in the Albanian Parliament, and also now and always, I have appreciated and continue to appreciate PASOK’s removal of the “state of war” with Albania, and its efforts… (Continued on page 6)

Question: The press has drawn a parallel between events in Russia and those in Albania. Is there any basis for doing so? Answer: I think that some similarities exist, but there are more differences. The similarity lies in the fact that, during the illegal demonstration in Tirana, at the head stood a group of certain colonels, most of whom had earned their rank through the crimes they had committed. At the head of these colonels was a general who had never been allowed to remove his epaulettes, along with an adventurist politician. In Moscow, by contrast, those at the head were criminals and KGB colonels led by an adventurist general. Here, the platform was for cracking skulls and slaughtering the wounded; there, it was for seizing Ba... (Continued on page 6)

NATIONAL LIBRARY TIRANA