See original here:
Why Russia’s democrats need West’s support

Go here to see the original:
US ‘must do more’ to promote Russian democracy

So we are in an information war. And we are losing that war. I’ll be very blunt in my assessment. Al-Jazeera is winning. The Chinese have opened up a global English-language and multi-language television network. The Russians have opened up an English-language network. I’ve seen it in a few countries, and it’s quite instructive.

Because most people still get their news from TV and radio. So even though we’re pushing online, we can’t forget TV and radio.

Secretary Clinton’s testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, March 2, 2011

LUGAR: I thank you for that answer. Let me just add one thought, and that is you have spoken eloquently about the broadcasters, the Broadcasting Board of Governors. And I think Walter Isaacson is taking hold of that as a constructive thing. I would hope that we would be more successful in moving more money toward communication with China, and as we heard with our North Korean hearing yesterday, more complex as to how you get the message. But, this is still a great force of diplomacy to get our message into places. We’re doing better in Iran. We’re doing in better in the Middle East, and we saw, and Tunisia, Egypt and so forth. But, I’m hopeful you can bring us good news about the more aggressive policies, hoping with the BBG and others.

CLINTON: Well, senator, I want to thank you for the report that you did on the broadcasting board of governors and all of the problems that it has experienced. I agree with you. Walter Isaacson is an excellent choice. The board is a very invigorated group of Republicans and Democrats. They understand. We are engaged in an information war. During the Cold War, we did a great job in getting America’s message out. After the Berlin Wall fell we said, okay, fine, enough of that. We’ve done it. We’re done. And unfortunately, we are paying a big price for it.

And our private media cannot fill that gap. In fact, our private media, particularly cultural programming, often works at counterpurposes to what we truly are as Americans and what our values are.

I remember having an Afghan general tell me that the only thing he thought about Americans is that all the men wrestled and the women walked around in bikinis. Because the only TV he ever saw was Baywatch and World Wide Wrestling. So we are in an information war. And we are losing that war. I’ll be very blunt in my assessment. Al-Jazeera is winning.

The Chinese have opened up a global English-language and multi-language television network. The Russians have opened up an English-language network. I’ve seen it in a few countries, and it’s quite instructive. We are cutting back. The BBC is cutting back.

So here’s what we are trying to do. In the State Department, we have pushed very hard on new media. So we have an Arabic Twitter feed. We have a Farsi Twitter feed. I have this group of young techno-experts who are out there engaging on websites and we’re putting all of our young Arabic-speaking diplomats out, so that they are talking about our values.

Walter [Issacson] is working hard with his Board to try to transform the broadcasting efforts. Because most people still get their news from TV and radio. So even though we’re pushing online, we can’t forget TV and radio. And so I look — I would look very much towards your cooperation, to try to figure out how we get back in the game on this. Because I hate ceding what we are most expert in to anybody else.

Dr. Helle Dale of the Heritage Foundation, who frequently writes about U.S. international broadcasting, blogged about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s remark in her testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 2, 2011 that the U.S. is losing the information war. Dr. Helle wrote:

“Most people still get their news from TV and radio,” Clinton said. This is entirely true, which makes it hard to understand why the BBG in February stated that it would end VOA radio and television transmission to China by next October, a decision that has caused joy in Beijing and great consternation among VOA employees and Chinese dissidents.

Dr. Helle also commented:

In response to a question from Representative Russ Carnahan (D–MO) in her testimony to the House Foreign Affairs Committee earlier in the day, Clinton made the same points, adding that she had spoken to BBG Chairman Walter Isaacson about the decline in U.S. global influence. If anyone could have a direct influence on the future of U.S. international broadcasting, it is her. Maybe Clinton should show up for some of the BBG’s monthly meetings and put her foot down.

Read more on the Heritage Foundation blog View the entire testimony on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee video

This public diplomacy misstep is one of many since President Obama took office and points to a total lack of leadership and planning within the White House and the State Department. Most recently, the White House failed to issue a traditional presidential proclamation for Easter, even though President Obama signed similar proclamations for Muslim and Jewish holidays. Other public diplomacy blunders included President Obama making the announcement of withdrawing U.S. missile defense shield from Poland on the anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland and his decision to go golfing on the day of the funeral for Poland’s President Lech Kaczynski who was killed in a plane crash in Russia.

Early in his term,  President Obama declined the Polish government’s invitation to attend the 70th anniversary observances of the outbreak of  World War II which started with the attacks on Poland by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. The low-level of the U.S. delegation to that event was widely criticized and the delegation was slightly upgraded at the last moment.   President Obama also failed to attend the 10th anniversary observances of the fall of the Berlin Wall. The White House tried to justify these absences by the President’s busy schedule, but critics of President Obama point out that he takes more frequent vacations than other U.S. presidents.

Snapshot of the U.S. Embassy to the Holy See Website on the day of Pope John Paul II's Beatification, May 1, 2011.

The lack of public diplomacy planning at the State Department prior to the beatification of Pope John Paul II  was evident from the websites of U.S. embassies in Rome and at the Vatican, both of which on May 1 had no text, photos or videos relating to the beatification ceremony for Pope John Paul II. Judith A. McHale is the current Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, whose job is to help lead America’s engagement with the people of the world. She has failed to prevent numerous embarrassing public diplomacy omissions and mistakes by the Obama Administration.

U.S. embassies in Central and Eastern Europe have by and large ignored the recent 100th anniversary of President Reagan’s birth as an occasion for public diplomacy events that could highlight his contribution along with Pope John Paul II to bringing about the fall of communism in the region. Many embassies chose instead during that time to focus on promoting hip-hop music events as part of the State Department’s cultural diplomacy program.

The U.S. Embassy in Warsaw had a number of posts on its Facebook Page about Pope John Paul II and U.S. presidents whom he had met, including photos of the Polish pope with President Reagan and President Clinton. But the Embassy’s official website had nothing about the pope and his numerous visits to the United States.

President Ronald Reagan with Pope John Paul II in Faribanks, Alaska, 1984.

Other recent U.S. presidents, including Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, were far more successful in managing their public diplomacy abroad, U.S. relations with the Vatican, and their relations with American Catholic voters. Ronald Reagan had a particularly close relationship with Pope John Paul II and consulted with him regularly on how to help the Solidarity human rights movement in Poland.

U.S. Ambassador to Malta Douglas Kmiec

The Obama Administration may have also offended some American Catholics by their treatment of the U.S. Ambassador to Malta Doug Kmiec, a conservative Catholic supporter of President Obama who recently offered to resign after State Department officials accused him of spending too much time promoting his religious views. Ambassador Kmiec is highly respected in Malta, where Catholicism is the official religion.

Related posts:

1. “Hunger for God and Love” – Interview with Cardinal Karol Wojtyla, Future Pope John Paul II
2. Who is the leader of the Free World? – Reagan, Bush, Obama – lessons in public diplomacy in response to anti-democracy crackdown in Belarus
3. Wojtyła’s Women: How Women, History and Polish Traditions Shaped the Life of Pope John Paul II and Changed the Catholic Church
4. Pope John Paul II’s 1979 Visit to the U.S. – VOA Video
5. Subversive U.S. Public Diplomacy Theme – Ronald Reagan

 Sourced from: TedLipien.com

The timing of the announcement has been seen around the world as a public diplomacy disaster for America and was described with ridicule in U.S. and foreign media reports. Needless to say, not only the decision itself, but also the historical symbolism of the date when it was announced, greatly upset the Polish Government and Polish Americans. It turned out to be a major embarrassment for President Obama.

The U.S. Embassy in Moscow cables released so far by Wikileaks and examined by Opinia.US still do not shed sufficient light on the timing of the announcement. Neither do the Wikileaks released cables originating from the State Department in Washington.

We do know, however, that a cable sent from the State Department to U.S. Embassies gave American ambassadors advanced warning of the September 17 announcement. Conceivably, one of the hundreds, if not thousands of U.S. diplomats and other State Department officials and officials of other U.S. Government agencies who had seen the cable could have warned Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama that releasing this news on the anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland was not a particularly bright idea. Unless someone, perhaps a U.S. Presidential adviser, deliberately wanted to send a message to the Poles that they should rely less on U.S. support and should seek an accommodation with the Kremlin.

Another theory is that Russian intelligence media specialists deliberately planted the September 17 announcement idea with historically-clueless American diplomats who somehow got the White House to fall for this clever ruse designed to make the Poles feel more vulnerable, and therefore more likely to adopt a more pro-Moscow attitude.

We still do not know if anyone sounded a warning but we do know that President Obama made his announcement on September 17.

The talking points in the leaked secret cable signed by Mrs. Clinton (The cable was not written by her, but most outgoing State Department cables bear the signature of the Secretary of State.) were addressed to U.S. Embassies except for those in Warsaw and Prague. We have learned from the leaked cable that separate talking points on missile defense were prepared for Poland and the Czech Republic, but Wikileaks has not yet put them on their website, assuming it has them. Also, no cables from the U.S. Embassy in Warsaw have been released by Wikileaks so far.

What we do know is that the Obama Administration had not negotiated a priori any concessions from the Kremlin for making this important decision, which severely undermined the sense of security of Poland and other U.S. allies in the region. We also found out that government officials in France had warned a high ranking U.S. diplomat that the Russian leaders would pocket this unilateral gift from the Obama Administration without giving Washington anything in return.

It also emerged from the leaked cables that one of the strongest advocates for the concession on missile defense to the Kremlin was U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. We also learned that he badly wanted Russian help in moving U.S. military supplies to Afghanistan. (It would be interesting to find out which U.S. private military contractors would benefit from these transports through Russian airspace and territory and what are their links to current DOD officials.)

The ever-so down-to-earth and cynical French warned an American diplomat that the Russians might actually help Washington in this particular area because the Kremlin wants to see the U.S. bogged down in the Afghanistan quagmire. It was also clear that President Obama expected Moscow’s help in dealing with the nuclear issue in Iran in exchange for his unilateral concession on missile defense in Central Europe.

It is incredible but not surprising that ideologically-driven and inexperienced U.S. President failed to get a firm deal with the Kremlin on this point ahead of time. In any case, both French and even U.S. diplomats had warned, according to the leaked cables, that the current Russian leadership would have no interest in helping the U.S. in Iran, and in fact is very much interested in keeping the Iranian crisis simmering on indefinitely for a number of good reasons related to their perception of Russia’s national interest. One of them is the high price of oil, from which Russia (read: the state energy sector controlled by Mr. Putin and to a lesser extent Mr. Medvedev) benefits economically.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a holdover from the Bush Administration, emerges from the cables almost as naive about dealing with Prime Minister Putin and President Medvedev as President Obama himself. In one of the cables from Paris, he is describes as informing the French Defense Minister, apparently with a straight face, that Mr. Putin had once told him that Iran represents the greatest threat for Russia. Apparently both Secretary Gates and President Obama bought this story from Mr. Putin, one of the most sophisticated ex-KGB disinformation experts Russia has ever produced. When it comes to diplomatic intrigue and safeguarding your own and your country’s interests, neither Mr. Obama nor Mr. Gates are a match for Mr. Putin, and not even Mr. Medvedev.

Of course, Mr. Putin’s perception of Russia’s interests are not really what the Russian people would benefit from if they had full democratic freedoms and were allowed to develop normal, mutually beneficial relations with America and the rest of the free world.

The leaked cables also show that U.S. diplomats were too timid to challenge vigorously what they knew to be the President’s views, but at least some brave souls tried to point out, albeit weakly and indirectly, that Mr. Obama’s plans with regard to Russia were based on rather naive assumptions. Overall, the American diplomatic service again failed the President and the American people. But with President Obama in the White with his progressive view of international politics, similar to that of President Roosevelt in his dealings with Stalin, the U.S. diplomats probably did not have much of a chance to influence his thinking. That job is now left to the American voters. Let’s only hope it is not too late.

This op-ed may be republished with attribution to Opinia.US.

Ted Lipien, a writer and journalist, was in charge of the Voice of America radio broadcasts to Poland during the Solidarity-led struggle for democracy. He is now president of Free Media Online (FreeMediaOnline.org), a California-based NGO which supports media freedom worldwide.

Opinia.US

Classified cables released by Wikileaks also show the U.S. Embassy in Moscow warning that it is in the interest of the current Russian leadership to maintain the threat of nuclear weapons in Iran. The same arguments have been advanced by U.S. critics of President Obama’s foreign policy who accuse him of lacking foreign policy experience and naive assumptions about national interests of countries like Russia.

The cables suggest that even among U.S. diplomats there is lot of scepticism about President Obama’s decisions on missile defense, “reset” of relations with Russia, and the Obama Administration’s desire to obtain Moscow’s help in dealing with Iran. The cables appear to confirm that the controversial policy initiatives on missile defense and Russia’s help in Iran originated with President Obama, his Russia advisor, and possibly Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, without much input from professional diplomats at the State Department.

Robert Gates, who also served in this position in the Bush Administration, has a strong interest in using Russia’s help in supplying U.S. troops in Afghanistan. We have suggested earlier that this is the only area in which the interests of U.S. military contractors and the Kremlin coincide. Both want to keep the U.S. troops in Afghanistan for as long as possible. While the U.S. is bogged down in Afghanistan, Russia can more easily try to expand its influence in Eastern and Central Europe.

According to one of the released cables, during a visit Paris in September 2009, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Gordon was told by the French that some in Russia have concluded their interests are served by keeping the west “tied down in an Afghanistan quagmire” and by sustaining the status quo in Iran.

A French government official said that a solution that thwarts Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions and restores Iran as a normal member of the international community could undermine Russian regional and energy interests.

Moreover, the Russian leaders appear to have concluded — a French official warned — Russia can pocket a projected U.S. decision to scale back or abandon the Bush administration’s Missile Defense initiative without paying any cost.

Another cable shows a U.S. diplomat in Moscow warning that as the world’s largest exporter of oil and gas, Russia benefits significantly from the “instability premium” embedded in world oil prices due to tensions with Iran. Even a USD 5 per barrel instability premium would net Russia almost 9 billion U.S. dollars per year for oil and approximately 2-4 billion from its gas exports. Finally, given Iran’s position as the second largest owner of gas reserves — the cable points out – Russia’s gas sector clearly benefits from the lack of international investment in the development of Iran’s natural gas sector.  The cable further suggests that Prime Minister Putin would not agree to any sanctions against Iran that could hurt Russian economic interests.

As with most U.S. State Department cables, the leaked cable from Moscow is signed by the U.S. Ambassador to the Russian Federation John Beyrle. This does not mean, however, that Ambassador Beyrle actually wrote the cable. They are usually drafted by senior Embassy officials.

As of Sunday morning, the Wikileaks site does not list any secret or classified cables originating from Warsaw. The cables from other U.S. embassies that have been released so far suggest, however, that President Obama made his concessions on missile defense at the expense of security needs of Poland and other U.S. allies in the region without getting any concessions from the Kremlin and despite warnings from U.S. diplomats that his policy assumptions vis-a-vis Russia are unrealistic.

Another cable from Paris appear to suggest that U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates may have taken at face value what Russian Prime Minister Putin had once told him that Iran was Russia’s greatest threat. Secretary Gates told his French counterpart, French Minister of Defense Herve Morin, that Russia is now of a different mind on Iran because of Tehran’s
persistent rejection of international proposals for negotiated
solutions and its concealment of its nuclear facility.

The cable also suggests that in his talks with the French officials, Secretary Gates also seems to be accepting at face value the Kremlin’s objections to the Bush Administration’s missile defense plan: 1. the radar in the Czech Republic would have been so powerful that it could see into Russia; 2. Russia believed that the three-stage Ground-Based Interceptor could have been converted easily to an offensive weapon. The SM-3 missiles in the new approach can only be defensive in nature, however. For these reasons, the U.S. believed partnering with Russia is once again potentially possible, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told the French Defense Minister.

 Sourced from: America.gov: english

 Sourced from: America.gov: english

 Sourced from: America.gov: english

U.S. Consular Officers at the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria, the U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria Robin R. Sanders, and Foreign Service Officers responsible for security had a professional duty to immediately cancel Mr. Abdulmutallab’s U.S. visa after his father warned the Embassy officials of his son’s likely radicalization.

No dots with the vague CIA information from Yemen on Mr. Abdulmutallab needed to be connected by anti-terrorism experts. The whole problem could have been easily averted at the U.S. Embassy in Abuja, Nigeria, if American diplomats had simply used common sense that most Americans would use in a similar situation.

These highly paid U.S. officials should have erred on the side of caution, not on the side of protecting the rights of individuals who are not U.S. citizens and have no automatic right to a U.S. visa.

After being told of the father’s concerns about his son, the first question from Ambassador Sanders should have been: does he have a U.S. visa? And if he does, let’s cancel it immediately.

Any of the Foreign Service Officers and other officials at the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria who knew about the case should have asked the same question. They are some of the best paid U.S. government employees and supposed to be some of the smartest.

We wish the latter were really true. If they were as smart and dedicated as they should be, Americans could feel safe about their borders being protected and there would be no need to spend extra billions of dollars on airport security. Unfortunately, a culture of careerism and political correctness makes it impossible for most U.S. Foreign Service Officers to think and act primarily in the interest of the American people.

U.S. diplomats in Nigeria did nothing to prevent the most recent incident because that would have required them to make a difficult decision that could have been viewed by their bosses at the State Department in Washington as a violation of Mr. Abdulmitallab’s rights. A decision to cancel his visa might have also exposed them to criticism of engaging in profiling and undermining President Obama’s new policy of reaching out to the Muslim world.

Let’s not forget that all of the 9/11 terrorists also received American visas from U.S. Foreign Service Officers.

Each U.S. diplomat stationed abroad costs U.S. taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars each year. But today’s U.S. Foreign Service Officers are mostly interested in protecting their considerable salaries and perks. They lack both status and courage to challenge official policies and behavior, often dictated by misguided political correctness.

It does not help that the standards for recruiting Foreign Service Officers have greatly declined over the last few decades. A U.S. diplomat who dares to make a difficult decision that could ruin his chances for career advancement is a rare exception.

If U.S. Foreign Service Officers used the right judgement and did their professional duty of protecting U.S. citizens rather than pleasing the political correctness crowd at the State Department and the White House, the 9/11 terror attack and the attempted airplane bombing over Detroit could have been prevented.

The CIA is also not off the hook. As with Foreign Service Officers, keeping a single CIA officer abroad also costs U.S. taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in salary, free housing, free education for children and freequent free travel to the U.S. The CIA station chief in Nigeria should have insisted that a Consular Officer at the Embassy or the Ambassador herself cancel Mr. Abdulmutallab’s U.S. visa. Without a U.S. visa, he would not have been able to get on the plane.

Ultimately, however, it’s not the CIA but the U.S. Ambassador who is responsible for what goes on at a U.S. embassy.

It is unlikely that the quality of U.S. Foreign Service Officers can be quickly improved in the current political environment in Washington. Intensive retraining of U.S. ambassadors, political officers, and consular officials at U.S. embassies might offer some help in the future if it is done correctly. But such retraining would certainly clash with the Obama administration’s policy assumptions about the world and the Foreign Service culture that promotes conformism.

Of course, much of the blame goes directly to President Obama and his administration’s top officials who have set the political agenda of granting people suspected of terrorism the benefit of the doubt in an naive hope that by being nice to them they would be nice to us. U.S. diplomats in Nigeria should have shown their respect for the local customs and culture by taking seriously the concerns expressed to them by Mr. Abdulmutallab’s father. They should have been nice to him. Instead, they behaved like typical Americans, assuming that the young man had the right to do what he wanted. Perhaps they thought that if they had cancelled his U.S. visa he might become anti-American and turn into a terrorist. That, after all, seems to be the essence of President Obama’s approach to the problem of terrorism.

U.S. diplomats in Nigeria were more than eager to implement this misguided agenda. The attempted airplane bombing over Detroit was a major failure of both the Obama administration and the culture of the U.S. diplomatic service. The American people deserve better than that.

 Sourced from: TedLipien.com

 Sourced from: America.Gov (U.S. State Dept.) Latest Items from Washington
Библиотека Конгресса открывает свободный онлайн-доступ к тысячам исторических книг

Most Polish media interpreted Ambassador Feinstein’s comments as revealing that Polish leaders may have told U.S. officials, specifically Vice President Biden, that Poland would increase the number of  its soldiers in Afghanistan. Such secret commitments, if they were indeed expressed, would not be at all well received by the Polish public opinion. This might explain the strong reaction of Polish government officials to Ambassador Feinstein’s public  comments, which most experts would view as ill-advised and undiplomatic in the current political climate in Poland, no matter how they were translated.

The presence of Polish troops in Afghanistan is a delicate issue in Poland, where support for keeping them is steadily declining. To compound this problem, Polish-American relations took a major turn for the worse after President Obama did not show up for the 70th anniversary observances in Poland of the outbreak of  World War II  and later canceled the Bush Administration’s missile defense plans on September 17, the day when the Poles were commemorating the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of their country.

These decisions by the U.S. president were seen as a major affront to the historically-minded Poles. They are also upset over the need to secure visas to visit the United States, a policy that continues from previous U.S. administrations, but the main reason for the growing  opposition to keeping Polish troops in Afghanistan is a realization that the U.S. has seriously mishandled the war.

Reacting to Ambassador Feinstein’s remarks,  which clearly indicated that the Polish government was committed to staying in Afghanistan and possibly planning “ to enhance its presence,”  Polish Defense Minister Bogdan Klich said that “the ambassador committed a blunder, since neither the prime minister, nor the minister of foreign affairs, nor the minister of national defense made any declarations to the American side about an increase in the contingent.” But, please remember that these are the ambassador’s first days at a new post,” Polish Defense Minister Klich added. 

The English-language newspaper Krakow Post ran an online headline “U.S. Ambassador to Poland ‘Committed a Blunder’.” Polish media reported extensively on Ambassador Feinstein’s and Minister Klich’s comments, although surprisingly this story has received very little attention in the U.S. media, possibly because of the confusion of what it really means for the continued presence of Polish troops in Afghanistan.  The Washington Times reported that the State Department spokesman Ian Kelly on Tuesday night attributed the controversy to an incorrect translation Saturday made on Polish television station TVN24. Ambassador Lee A. Feinstein, speaking in English, actually said that Polish officials planned to “enhance their presence” in Afghanistan and not send additional troops, Mr. Kelly said. As someone who has done thousands of translations from English to Polish, I can honestly say that the mistranslation was minimal and did not distort what Ambassador Feinstein really meant. Had it truly been a serious mistranslation, the embassy would have posted a correct translation on its website. It did not because it would show that Polish media reports about the essential meaning of the ambassador’s remarks were generally correct.

Blaming a translator is in this case a very ungracious way of trying to compensate for the ambassador’s diplomatic mistake. Other ambassadors might have received a rebuke from the Secretary of State for embarrassing their host government, but Ambassador Feinstein is very well connected within the Obama administration. His defense by the State Department adds to a series of offending statements and actions taken in recent months in Washington vis-a-vis Poland and shows a level of arrogance that was not seen even during the Bush administration, which was not known for being overly diplomatic in dealing with other countries.

Despite all the insults, it does not appear that Poland will withdraw its troops from Afghanistan. In fact, while being snubbed and embarrassed by the Obama Administration, Poland is planning to send  to Afghanistan additional 200 soldiers as an emergency reserve contingent. The Polish leaders understand that regardless of who is currently occupying the White House, to protect its independence Poland must have good relations with the United States.

Taking a lead from the State Department and Ambassador Feinstein, who is now in Washington for consultations prior to Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski’s visit, U.S. diplomats in Warsaw are now engaged in a  counterproductive effort of trying to put the blame for a diplomatic faux pas on Polish media and the  Polish translator, instead of admitting a mistake and moving on. Contrary to common sense and the often stated desire of the Obama Administration  to see more Polish troops in Afghanistan, these public diplomacy ”experts” are suggesting to their media contacts that Ambassador Feinstein’s words ” prime minister’s and president’s commitment” and  ”to enhance its presence” did not mean that he was talking about sending more Polish troops to Afghanistan. In an attempt to rescue the reputation of the new U.S. ambassador, they have painted themselves into a corner by implying that President Obama’s representative in Warsaw does not know what  the president and the United States want Poland to do.

This is only the latest  in a series of  the public diplomacy disasters in Poland created by the Obama White House and the State Department. The U.S. Embassy’s lame attempts to salvage the reputation of a novice American ambassador, who apparently did nothing to prevent the September 17 missile defense announcement, actually made the controversy worse by exposing a certain lack of sincerity on the part of the Obama administration.

Ambassador Feinstein’s nomination to be Ambassador to Poland was not yet confirmed by the U.S. Senate on September 17, but as an advisor to Hillary Clinton during her presidential campaign and later to the Obama White House, he had excellent contacts that could have helped him to prevent the embarrassment of  having the president announce the missile shield decision on the worst possible day for Poland.

Ultimately, however, the public diplomacy disaster ironically worked to the advantage of Central Europe. Stung by media criticism, the White House had to send Vice President Biden on a face-saving mission to Poland, Romania, and the Czech Republic, where he made a number of statements committing the U.S. to the defence of the region, which President Obama will now find difficult to ignore in his drive to “reset” relations with Moscow.  

Still, the Poles, most of whom had grown up being exposed to communist propaganda and are quite cynical  about exaggerated declarations from government officials, had a good reason to be sceptical when Vice President Biden insisted in Romania that President Obama’sdecision to cancel the missile defense system in Central Europe had nothing to do with Russia and was not meant to appease the Kremlin.  Central Europeans who have experienced life under communism like to match words with actions.

During his trip, Mr.  Biden was also effusive in his praise of the courage of Central and East European freedom fighters who had faced tanks and the threat of death or arrests as they were bringing about the fall of communist dictatorships 20 years ago. Yet today’s Central Europeans  knew from news reports, that a few days earlier merely a threat of displeasing aging Chinese communist leaders thousands of miles away in Beijing persuaded President Obama not to meet in Washington with the highly-respected Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama. Some also knew that President Obama had canceled his plans to participate in the ceremony to mark the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.

These additional public diplomacy blunders deepened a major crisis of confidence in the Obama Administration among the Poles and other Central Europeans, which Vice President Biden’s high declarations were not able to erase. Overall, however, his trip to Central Europe was helpful, as the former Bush-era ambassador to Poland Victor Ashe told a New York Times reporter. My own observation is that, if nothing else, Biden’s exaggerated statements have bound President Obama to a more cautious approach toward his rapprochement with the Kremlin.

In handling, or more accurately, mishandling the controversy over Ambassador Feinstein’s remarks, the State Department diplomats could have learned from what a Polish dissident writer said when he was living in Poland under communism. When you find yourself in a difficult situation and don’t know what to say, tell the truth.  They should also pay attention to what former Czech dissident, human rights activist, statesman, playwright, and Nobel Prize winner Vaclav Havel said after learning that President Obama had refused to meet the Dalai Lama.

“It is only a minor compromise,” Mr. Havel said of the nonreception of the Tibetan leader. “But exactly with these minor compromises start the big and dangerous ones, the real problems.”

The State Department and U.S. diplomats in Warsaw want journalists to believe that Ambassador Feinstein was not talking about more Polish soldiers in Afghanistan. What else could he have meant when he talked about “enhancing”  Poland’s presence in the Afghan war zone? Polish experts on crop rotation?

The following is the Polish-language corrected transcript of the TVN24 interview with  U.S. Ambassador to Poland Lee A. Feinstein. You may also follow this link to view a video of the interview, in which the relevant comments in English can still be partly heard in between the voice of the translator.

Maciej Wierzyński (in the early 1990s, Mr. Wierzyński was director of  the Voice of America (VOA) Polish Service in Washington, D.C. VOA no longer broadcasts radio programs to Poland or has any other news content in Polish, neither does the State Department nor Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty, RFE/RL) : Skoro mowa o Afganistanie, z pewnością wie Pan, że w Polsce poparcie dla obecności polskich wojsk Afganistanie słabnie. Niektórzy politycy otwarcie wzywają do wycofania polskich wojsk. Jak pan odpowiedziałby na takie obawy.

 

Lee A. Feinstein: To świetne pytanie, tak naprawdę to jest problem nie tylko w Polsce ale i w Stanach zjednoczonych. W Stanach poparcie społeczne dla narażania ludzi na niebezpieczeństwo to zawsze delikatna kwestia. Chcę więc powiedzieć o tym kilka rzeczy. Po pierwsze – Stany Zjednoczone są zdecydowane zostać w Afganistanie i co do tego nie powinno być żadnych wątpliwości. Prezydent, jak Pan zapewne wie, rozważa różne opcje w Afganistanie – dokładniej jak iść z misją do przodu. Jedna rzecz jest poza dyskusją – wycofanie. Prezydent jest zdecydowany zostać w Afganistanie i zwyciężyć. Mam nadzieję, że to daje trochę pewności, oczywiście to ciężka walka, jesteśmy wdzięczni polskiemu premierowi i prezydentowi za zobowiązanie by być w Afganistanie, w istocie, żeby wzmocnić obecność w Afganistanie. Jesteśmy niezwykle wdzięczni Polakom za wspólne poświęcenie.  

 Sourced from: TedLipien.com

Ambassador Feinstein made a public statement, in which thanked the Polish government for planning to enlarge its military contingent in Afghanistan, but Polish Defense Minister Bogdan Klich has denied that a decision to increase Poland’s troop deployment in Afghanistan has been taken.

On Saturday, Ambassador Feinstein said on the TVN24 Polish television channel that Poland’s president and prime minister “declared that not only would they be keeping Polish soldiers in Afghanistan, but they would also enlarge the contingent. This is something for which we are very grateful.”

Speaking Monday morning at a press conference, Bogdan Klich denied such claims and suggested that Ambassador Feinstein may have been guilty of a diplomatic faux pas. Mr. Klich said “The ambassador committed a blunder, since neither the prime minister, nor the minister of foreign affairs, nor the minister of national defense made any declarations to the American side about an increase in the contingent. But, please remember that these are the ambassador’s first days at a new post.”

Picking up on the Polish defense minister’s comments, the English-language newspaper Krakow Post ran an online headline “U.S. Ambassador to Poland ‘Committed a Blunder’.” The Polish Radio’s International Service posted on its website a report under a more diplomatic headline “Confusion over Poland’s Afghan deployment deepens.”

Polish Radio quotes Mr. Klich as saying “There is no such decision, nor plans.” The Polish defense minister added that the contingent of 2,000 Polish soldiers in the Ghazni province in Afghanistan will not be enlarged unless it is absolutely necessary. He did confirm, however, that 200 soldiers would be going to Afghanistan to be held in strategic reserve in case of emergencies.

Responding to questions about Ambassador Feinstein’s comments, President Kaczynski’s office said that no detailed plans had been sent by the defense ministry on the issue of enlarging the Polish military contingent in Afghanistan, and that it was far too early to make such a decision.

Surprisingly, U.S. media, which has been lately reporting extensively on Afghanistan, has not yet picked up on this story. It was reported by the Chinese news agency Xinhua. A brief summary of the Xinhua report was placed on The USA Today website.

Whether other U.S. media outlets report on this story will become clearer on Tuesday. An earlier diplomatic blunder between Poland and the U.S. over President Obama’s announcement about the removal of the U.S. missile defense shield system from Poland and the Czech Republic, which he made on the day of the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland at the beginning of WWII, received considerable U.S. media attention.

Media criticism may have forced President Obama to send Vice President Biden on a face-saving mission to Central Europe. During the visit, Mr. Biden made several strong comments in support of U.S. commitments to the defense of Poland and other Central European nations, which President Obama may now find difficult to ignore in his attempts to improve relations with Russia.

Koniec wiadomości/analizy Opinia.US. Można ją opublikować z powołaniem się na Opinia.US. End of Opinia.US report/analysis. Opinia.US reports/analyses may be republished with attribution.

Ten tekst by Opinia.US is licensed under a Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa 3.0 Stany Zjednoczone License.

This work by Opinia.US is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.

Subscribe to Opinia.US

Your email:

 Sourced from: Opinia.US

For a visit that was presented by the White House as a very important diplomatic mission, the U.S. public diplomacy team did close to nothing, revealing perhaps that the trip was more about damage control and was not so important after all. On the other hand, the U.S. has not had an effective public diplomacy operation since the United States Information Agency, USIA, was disbanded after the end of the Cold War. State Department diplomats did not prevent the Obama White House from announcing the missile shield removal decision on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland.

Vice President Biden’s trip was designed to repair the public relations damage, but the White House has not posted any photos or videos from his visit to Poland. The Voice of America, VOA, a U.S. government-funded international broadcaster, did not send a reporter with the vice president on his trip to Central Europe. VOA has not had any radio, TV or Internet programs in Polish for many years.

VOA posted on its English-language website a short text and audio report by Hilary Heuler, a freelance reporter based in Poland who quoted an unidentified woman in Warsaw as saying that “she was happy the shield was canceled because she does not think Poland needs to be defended from anyone, even Russia.”

She also reported that Mr. Obama’s announcement last month that he was canceling the planned Bush-era missile shield ruffled a lot of feathers in Poland. Some politicians claimed the United States had abandoned the region in order to repair relations with Russia, which strongly opposed the previous missile plan. Polish newspapers ran alarming headlines about betrayal and the triumph of Moscow. But Biden assured Poland the United States and NATO are still committed to defending the region, VOA report pointed out.

VOA stringer Hilary Heuler also filed another, more analytical report, Missile Defense High on Agenda as Biden Tours Central Europe.* Listen to VOA Report

She quoted Jan Filip Stanilko, an analyst at the Warsaw-based Sobieski Institute, a political think tank, who explained why the old Bush administration plans made Poland feel more secure.

“The main advantage was having a stable American installation in Poland, something which is built, unmovable, and which may be the reason to defend this installation and country,” he said. “The Patriot missile is moveable, and it’s obviously not enough because we need 20 such missile batteries and we got only one.”

The VOA report also pointed pointed out that many Poles assumed the U.S. decision to cancel the shield was an attempt to cozy up to Russia, which was strongly opposed to the original plans. The White House denies that this was the case. But even the Voice of America stringer in Warsaw noted that “the timing of the announcement was undeniably clumsy, coming on the same day that Poland commemorated the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland in World War II.”

Neither the Voice of America nor the White has released any video from Vice President Biden’s visit to Warsaw. In a televised appearance with Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, Mr. Biden referred to him as “Mr. President.” He later corrected himself. A search on YouTube for videos related to Biden’s visit placed at the top a TV report from Russia Today, an English-language international TV channel funded by the Russian government.

On Friday, the White House added to its blog Central European language versions of the text of Vice President Biden’s speech in Bucharest, in which he made somewhat doubtful claim that President Obama’s missile defense proposal had nothing to do with Russia. The Polish translation was far from perfect.

Update: All translations of Vice President Biden’s speech were subsequently removed from the White House Blog, possibly because they were not totally accurate. The Polish translation posted here had been downloaded by Opinia.US before it was removed from the White House website.

The translations, however, were still available on the U.S. State Department’s America.gov website.

Koniec wiadomości/analizy Opinia.US. Można ją opublikować z powołaniem się na Opinia.US. End of Opinia.US report/analysis. Opinia.US reports/analyses may be republished with attribution.

Ten tekst by Opinia.US is licensed under a Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa 3.0 Stany Zjednoczone License.

This work by Opinia.US is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.

Subscribe to Opinia.US

Your email:

*We post reports from government and nongovernment sources for informational purposes only. Their inclusion does not imply confirmation of facts or support by Opinia.US. To evaluate such reports, please see Opinia.US analyses. Opinia.US is a project of Free Media Online, a nongovernmental journalistic organization based in San Francisco, CA, USA.

 Sourced from: Opinia.US

Secretary Clinton welcomed “calls by Russian officials defending the necessity of a free press,” but she failed to state the obvious that these calls are hollow and are contradicted by actions against free media taken almost on a daily basis by the Russian government and its proxies. While Secretary Clinton said that “the failure to bring to justice the killers of these journalists undermines efforts to strengthen the rule of law, improve government accountability, and combat corruption,” she said nothing about numerous cases of intimidation of journalists by the Russian security services and the Kremlin’s grip on all the major media outlets in the country.

07 October 2009

Clinton on Third Anniversary of Death of Anna Politkovskaya
Secretary notes failure to bring criminals to justice weakens rule of law

(begin text)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
October 7, 2009

STATEMENT BY SECRETARY CLINTON

Third Anniversary of Death of Anna Politkovskaya

Today we mark with sadness the third anniversary of the tragic slaying of journalist Anna Politkovskaya. To date, no one has been brought to justice in this case, similar to other cases involving violent crimes against journalists in Russia, including Paul Klebnikov and more recently Natalya Estemirova. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, 18 journalists have been killed in Russia since 2000 in retaliation for their work. In only one case have the killers been convicted.

While we welcome calls by Russian officials defending the necessity of a free press, the failure to bring to justice the killers of these journalists undermines efforts to strengthen the rule of law, improve government accountability, and combat corruption.

(end text)

US State Department (America.gov)>>

Госсекретарь отмечает, что непривлечение преступников к ответственности ослабляет власть закона

ГОСУДАРСТВЕННЫЙ ДЕПАРТАМЕНТ США

Офис пресс-секретаря

7 октября 2009 года

ЗАЯВЛЕНИЕ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОГО СЕКРЕТАРЯ КЛИНТОН

Третья годовщина смерти Анны Политковской

Сегодня мы с грустью отмечаем третью годовщину трагического убийства журналистки Анны Политковской. До настоящего времени никто не привлечен к ответственности по данному делу, как и по другим делам, связанным с насильственными преступлениями против журналистов в России, включая Пола Хлебникова и недавно погибшую Наталью Эстемирову. По данным Комитета по защите журналистов, с 2000 года в России было убито 18 журналистов, которым мстили за их работу. Только в одном случае убийцам был вынесен приговор.

Хотя мы приветствуем заявления российских официальных лиц о необходимости наличия свободной прессы, неспособность привлечь к ответственности убийц этих журналистов подрывает усилия по укреплению законности, улучшению подотчетности правительства и борьбе с коррупцией. Госдепартамент США (America.gov)>>

Выбор ГоворитАмерика.us GovoritAmerika.us. Вы можете скопировать и использовать эту статью. You can copy and use this report. Подписка на рассылку ГоворитАмерика.us.

Many US and international commentators condemned and ridiculed the timing of the announcement, and the decision itself, as undermining US credibility and security of US allies, even if some of them agreed that on purely technical merits it may have been a right move. A number of influential Republican members of Congress, including Senator Richard Lugar, R-IN, and Senator George Voinovich, R-OH, were also critical of the way President Obama is treating US allies in East-Central Europe. A State Department official, who was asked to explain how such a public diplomacy disaster could have happened, refused to comment and suggested that these questions should be directed to the White House. The National Security Council, NSC, is believed to have been responsible for coordinating the evaluation of the anti-missile system. In a highly unusual move for a diplomatic mission abroad, the US Embassy in Warsaw acknowledged on its official website that that Poles believe that the “insensitive timing” — as the Embassy put it — of the White House announcement “shows that Obama does not understand Poland.”

One of the experts, who suspect that the US State Department and the White House may have been duped by Russian propaganda experts, is Dr. John Brown, a former US diplomat who had served in Warsaw and Moscow. In an article titled, The September 17 missile announcement: A speculation regarding this public-diplomacy disaster, Dr. Brown offered his theory that “the cynical but clever Putin oligarchy proposed the date of the announcement, knowing full well that the Americans, ignorant of history (or not caring about it, true to their national character) would have no objections, timed as it was to occur before Obama’s speech at the UN. The Putin-Russians, no fools and familiar with the Polish fear (and resentment) of being abandoned by the West, also realized full well that the date of the announcement would produce an anti-American backlash among the Poles, even among those who had opposed the shield in the first place, because it would be seen by them as yet another great power deal to diminish the influence of their country and leave it defenseless.”

Dr. Brown has not been a supporter of the Bush missile defense plan, and considers it both foolish and unnecessarily provocative toward Russia, but he has been highly critical of the way the Obama Administration handled the whole issue vis-a-vis Poland. During his diplomatic career of more than 20 years, he had served mostly in Eastern and Central Europe. He resigned from the US Foreign Service in protest against President Bush’s war in Iraq. Dr. Brown is currently affiliated with Georgetown University in Washington, where he lectures on public diplomacy.

Several factors suggest that the White House was indeed duped by Russian propaganda experts as part of a carefully planned public relations scheme. Prior to the September 17th anniversary, the Kremlin controlled media helped to raise enormous anger and fear among the Poles by publishing a number of news items and commentaries defending Stalin’s pact with Hitler that let to the German-Soviet partition of Poland. This was followed by Prime Minister Putin’s statement in Gdansk in connection with the earlier anniversary on September 1 of the Nazi attack on Poland, in which he appeared to condemn the Hitler-Stalin Pact while still defending Stalin and his policies. Despite its ambiguous nature, Putin’s statement made him look good to some Polish and many international media outlets, while President Obama was criticized for not attending the Gdansk ceremony and not even bothering to send a high level US official in his place.

It seems highly plausible that at about the same time Russian diplomats suggested to the White House or the State Department that they were planning to make an immediate announcement about canceling their plans to have Russian missiles placed in the Kaliningrad district near the border of Poland if President President Obama would make his announcement about the US missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic on September 17. They may have also suggested that President Obama’s announcement of his decision just before his speech to the UN General Assembly would be seen by President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin as a highly positive gesture and might generate future Russian concessions to Washington on dealing with Iran.

The official position of the State Department on the timing of the missile shield announcement, which was given to Dr. Brown in a phone conversation, is that “State Department sources could not explain the choice of that date.” Opinia.US has been trying to get the White House to respond. The White House press office has referred us to the National Security Council (NSC) and their press office. We have asked them a number of questions and were promised a response, but it did not come before our publishing deadline.

Koniec wiadomości Opinia.US. Wiadomość może być wykorzystana przez media z powołaniem się na Opinia.US.

End of Opinia.US report. Opinia.US reports may be republished with attribution.

Ten tekst by Opinia.US is licensed under a Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa 3.0 Stany Zjednoczone License.

This work by Opinia.US is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.

The US embassy website annoucement dealt with the presentation of a book about Polish history to President Obama last week in New York by Polish President Lech Kaczynski. According to news reports, President Kaczynski sat next to President Barack Obama at a luncheon in New York where world leaders gathered for the UN session of the General Assembly. During his meeting with Barack Obama, President Kaczynski gave him a copy of Alex Storozynski‘s book about Tadeusz Kosciuszko: The Peasant Prince: Thaddeus Kosciuszko and the Age of Revolution. President Obama’s copy of The Peasant Prince had an inscription from the author which said: “To President Obama, May Kosciuszko inspire you to learn more about Poland, the country whose motto is, For Your Freedom and Ours.” Poles are particularly upset that the Obama administration in its desire to win favors with Moscow does not appreciate their military contributions in Iraq and Afghanistan, where Polish soldiers have been fighting alongside American soldiers and suffered casualties.

President Kaczynski, who was elected in 2005 for a five year term, had a close relationship with former President Bush and supported his missile defense plans. The current government in Poland is headed by one of President Kaczynski’s political rivals, Prime Minister Donald Tusk, but as most Polish politicians, he has also supported the Bush plan. Prime Minister Tusk was reported to be upset by the Obama administration announcement on September 17 and the lack of proper consultations with America’s allies in Central Europe to the point of refusing to accept a telephone call from President Obama, which came in the middle of the night in Poland on September 16.

The US Embassy in Warsaw noted that the book The Peasant Prince by Alex Storozynski outlines Kosciuszko’s pivotal role in the American Revolution and his efforts to spread that democratic revolution to Europe. If the first African American US president was not offended by being told in such a public gesture that he needs to improve his knowledge of Polish history and takes time to read the book, he would learn that in addition to fighting to overthrow the British monarchy in the United States, Kosciuszko championed the rights of black slaves in America. Kosciuszko was also a champion for the rights of white serfs in feudalistic Europe, Jews, women, Native Americans and all people who were disenfranchised. His motto was, “For your freedom and ours.”

The Embassy describes Kosciuszko was a true American hero. He joined the Continental Army in 1776, and after building forts near Philadelphia; he devised the strategy for the Battle of Saratoga – the turning point of the American Revolution. Kosciuszko also drafted the blueprints for West Point and built the fortress that Benedict Arnold tried to sell to the British. Jefferson said of Kosciuszko: “He is as pure a son of liberty, as I have ever known, and of that liberty which is to go to all, and not to the few or rich alone.”

President Obama may share some of the basic attitude toward Poland, Polish Americans and Russia as another progressive and popular US president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The Polish question became a major nuisance for FDR during World War II, just as it may now become for President Obama, who apparently believes that Russia’s help is essential in dealing with Iran and other global issues, said a former US government official who was in charge of American radio broadcasts to Poland during the Cold War.

FDR was convinced that the Soviet Union and Stalin were indispensable to maintaining peace in East-Central Europe and would help the US in the war against Japan while Poland was just a minor military ally. In an exchange that took place in 1943, FDR observed in response to doubts being expressed by one of his advisors about Stalin, “I just have a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of a man. . . . I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask for nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything and will work with me for a world… of democracy and peace.”

FDR’s wildly optimistic assessment of Stalin and Russia led to the Yalta Conference agreement in February 1944, in which the United States and Great Britain effectively gave Moscow control over Poland and other nations in East-Central Europe. While American public opinion, US strategy and policy toward the Soviet Union changed drastically shortly after FDR’s death, it took several decades of the Cold War, the wars in Korea and Vietnam, and billions of dollars in military expenditures before the Soviet Union collapsed and Eastern Europe was liberated peacefully from Moscow’s domination.

The fear in Poland that history may repeat itself may explain, according to a former US official, the unprecedented frankness of the news item placed by American diplomats in Warsaw on the US Embassy website. Another explanation may be the absence of a US ambassador in Poland, the lack of usual bureaucratic supervision and the desire of the embassy staff to redeem themselves after failing to get the attention of the Obama White House that making the missile announcement on September 17 would be seen as a major offense in Poland.

It is not clear whether the news on the US embassy website is a purely local initiative of American diplomats in Warsaw or represents a major effort approved in Washington to repair the public relations damage from President Obama’s decision. A former employee of the now defunct US Information Agency, which was once responsible for conducting public diplomacy, said that in any case it was a commendable display of diplomatic frankness and courage.

President Bush’s ambassador, Victor H. Ashe, had left Poland last week. The new ambassador-designate to Poland is Lee A. Feinstein, a former political advisor to Hillary Clinton. He apparently also failed to educate the White House and his former and current boss at the Department of State on the sensitivity of this issue for the Polish people.

End of Opinia.US report. Opinia.US reports may be republished with attribution.

Material from US Embassy Warsaw website.

President Barack Obama Receives a Copy of The Peasant Prince from President Lech Kaczynski
25 September 2009

Polish President Lech Kaczynski sat next to President Barack Obama yesterday at a luncheon in New York where world leaders were gathered for the UN session of the General Assembly. During his meeting with Barack Obama, President Kaczynski gave him a copy of Alex Storozynski‘s book about Tadeusz Kosciuszko: The Peasant Prince: Thaddeus Kosciuszko and the Age of Revolution, Polish Press Agency reported. President Obama’s copy of The Peasant Prince had an inscription from the author which said: “To President Obama, May Kosciuszko inspire you to learn more about Poland, the country whose motto is, For Your Freedom and Ours.” According to PAP, President Kaczynski expressed his disappointment over Obama’s decision to change a plan by former President Bush to place a missile shield in Poland. The timing of Obama’s announcement upset Poland and Polish Americans because it came on Sept. 17, the 70th anniversary of the Russian invasion of Poland at the beginning of World War II.

Russian troops occupied Poland for the next five decades, and did not withdraw until after the Cold War. Poles believe that the insensitive timing of this announcement shows that Obama does not understand Poland.

The Peasant Prince by Alex Storozynski outlines Kosciuszko’s pivotal role in the American Revolution and his efforts to spread that democratic revolution to Europe. In addition to fighting to overthrow the British monarchy in the United States, Kosciuszko championed the rights of black slaves in America, white serfs in feudalistic Europe, Jews, women, Native Americans and all people who were disenfranchised. His motto was, “For your freedom and ours.”

Kosciuszko was a true American hero. He joined the Continental Army in 1776, and after building forts near Philadelphia; he devised the strategy for the Battle of Saratoga – the turning point of the American Revolution. Kosciuszko also drafted the blueprints for West Point and built the fortress that Benedict Arnold tried to sell to the British. Jefferson said of Kosciuszko: “He is as pure a son of liberty, as I have ever known, and of that liberty which is to go to all, and not to the few or rich alone.”

Alex Storozynski, The Peasant Prince author, visited Warsaw in August 2009. Please click here to read the report from his visit.

Prezydent Barack Obama otrzymał z rąk prezydenta Lecha Kaczyńskiego książkę „Chłopski książę”

25 września 2009

Na obiedzie wydanym wczoraj na cześć światowych przywódców przybyłych do Nowego Jorku na sesję Zgromadzenia Ogólnego ONZ prezydent Lech Kaczyński zajmował miejsce obok prezydenta Baracka Obamy. Jak podała Polska Agencja Prasowa, podczas spotkania z prezydentem USA prezydent Kaczyński wręczył gospodarzowi egzemplarz książki Alexa Storożyńskiego o Tadeuszu Kościuszce pt. „Chłopski książę”, zawierający następującej treści dedykację autora: „Prezydentowi Obamie z życzeniami, by Kościuszko stał się inspiracją do lepszego poznania Polski, kraju, który kieruje się mottem: „Za waszą i naszą wolność”. Według PAP-u prezydent Kaczyński wyraził rozczarowanie decyzją Obamy o zmianie podjętego przez prezydenta Busha planu budowy tarczy antyrakietowej w Polsce. Polaków oraz obywateli amerykańskich polskiego pochodzenia poruszył fakt, że decyzja prezydenta Obamy została ogłoszona 17 września, w 70. rocznicę rosyjskiej inwazji na Polskę w pierwszych dniach drugiej wojny światowej.

Wojska rosyjskie okupowały Polskę przez kolejne pięćdziesiąt lat i wycofały się dopiero wtedy, gdy zimna wojna dobiegła końca. Zdaniem Polaków wybór tak niezręcznej pory na ogłoszenie decyzji świadczy o tym, że Obama nie rozumie Polski.

W książce „Chłopski książę” Storożyński przedstawia kluczową rolę Kościuszki w Amerykańskiej Rewolucji oraz jego zabiegi o rozszerzenie demokratycznej rewolucji na Europę. Równolegle z walką o obalenie brytyjskiej monarchii w Stanach Zjednoczonych Kościuszko walczył o prawa czarnoskórych niewolników w Ameryce i chłopów pańszczyźnianych w feudalnej Europie, jak również o prawa Żydów, kobiet, Indian amerykańskich oraz wszystkich osób pozbawionych praw obywatelskich. Przez cały ten czas kierował się mottem: „Za waszą i naszą wolność”.

Kościuszko zyskał miano prawdziwego bohatera Ameryki. W 1776 r. wstąpił do Armii Kontynentalnej i zbudował fortyfikację wokół Filadelfii; opracował strategię bitwy pod Saratogą, która to bitwa okazała się punktem zwrotnym Amerykańskiej Rewolucji. Zaprojektował również i zbudował twierdzę West Point, którą później Benedict Arnold próbował sprzedać Brytyjczykom. Jefferson powiedział o Kościuszce: „To najprawdziwszy syn wolności, tej wolności, która stanie się udziałem wszystkich, nie tylko tych nielicznych i bogatych.”

“It wasn’t that the shield was that important, but it’s about the way, the way of treating us.”

–Lech Wałęsa, the former Polish president and Solidarity leader, regarding the US decision to drop the missile defense shield in Poland, John Brown’s Public Diplomacy Press and Blog Review, Version 2.0

Dear Poland, Happy Soviet Invasion Day, Love Uncle Sam

Wired

Poland has not one but two Pearl Harbor Days in September: the anniversary of the start of World War II with the Nazi German attack on Poland on September 1, 1939 and the Soviet invasion of eastern Poland on September 17, 1939 under the terms of the Hitler-Stalin Pact. Someone at the State Department should have explained the significance of these two dates for Poland to Hawaiian-born US President. There was no good reason for snubbing Poland by sending a minor US official to the anniversary observances in Gdansk on September 1 to stand alongside of heads of state and Russia’s Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, and President Obama did not have to announce his missile shield decision on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland. Ted Lipien

Update

2009 marks 90 years of diplomatic relations between Poland and the United States. This is the last week of US Ambassador Victor H. Ashe’s tenure in Poland. A holdover President George W. Bush’s appointee, he is scheduled to depart Warsaw permanently on September 26. President Obama’s Ambassador-Designate to Poland is Lee A. Feinstein who is on leave from the Brookings Institution, where he has been a Visiting Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies. He was National Security Director to Hillary Rodham Clinton during her presidential campaign. Ambassador Victor Ashe congratulated Mr. Feinstein: “President Obama made an excellent choice in announcing his intent to nominate Lee Feinstein as the next U.S. Ambassador to Poland. I know the Embassy and Polish-American relations will be in good hands under his leadership.” If confirmed, Mr. Feinstein will be the 25th U.S. Ambassador to Poland.

American Diplomacy Failed Obama in Poland

While American and international media blames President Obama for choosing to announce his decision on the removal of the missile defense system from Poland and Czech Republic on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet attack on Poland on September 17, 1939, surprisingly so far no one has called it a failure of American diplomacy. What makes this failure even more disturbing is that neither the State Department nor the White House has drawn any lessons from an earlier public diplomacy disaster when they gave grave offence by sending to Poland a low-level delegation to participate in the 70th anniversary observances on September 1 of the start of World War II, a date also of great historical significance to the Polish people.

Both missteps were completely avoidable. Why add insult to injury? Why offend even more a loyal US ally in the war on terror who has contributed troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan?

There may be some who think that the Obama White House deliberately snubbed and punished Poland because Warsaw was one of the strongest supporters among NATO members of President Bush’s foreign policy. I don’t think this was the case. President Obama and his closest advisors may be naive and historically challenged, but they would not sacrifice American national interests in such a way. The additional humiliation of Poland was not deliberate. It was unplanned, and much of it was certainly unnecessary and avoidable.

If only one US diplomat, one foreign service officer at the State Department, did his or her job well, some of the international headlines making fun of President Obama’s lack of appreciation of history would not have been written. Where was the US Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Judith McHale, one of President Obama’s appointees? (Photo) Where was the US Ambassador to Poland Victor Ashe?

As President Bush’s holdover appointee who is leaving his post in Warsaw this week, Ambassador Ashe would not have much influence with the Obama White House anyway. But where was President Obama’s Ambassador-Designate to Poland Lee A. Feinstein? The Brookings Institution Visiting Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies and National Security Director to Hillary Rodham Clinton during her presidential campaign should have been already advising the Obama Administration on a host of issues, including the sensitive area of history and trust in US-Polish relations. His statement made to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on September 15, just two days before President Obama’s ill-timed announcement, shows a certain appreciation of Poland’s history.

“Poland has endured great hardship and tragedy in its history. It has been occupied and dismembered by foreign powers time and again. It experienced a brief period of independence after World War I, but then fell prey to Nazi invasion and occupation, during which six million Polish citizens lost their lives, including three million Jews, most of Poland’s Jewish population. Then, following the war, the Soviet regime deprived Poles of their political liberty and imposed an economic system that kept the country in poverty and subjugation.”

President Obama’s Ambassador-Designate to Poland Lee A. Feinstein, September 15, 2009

Ambassador-Designate Feinstein did not specifically mention the Soviet invasion of Poland on September 17, 1939, but he undoubtedly knew about it, and knew about President Obama’s pending missile shield announcement. He probably also knows that the Poles still remember how the US Administration of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had betrayed Poland to Russia at the end of World War II. I specifically refer to FDR and his administration, and not the American people who did not want to see Poland being sold to Stalin.

Lee Feinstein should have called the White House to offer friendly advice on Polish history and perhaps quote from another part of his earlier statement: “As Secretary Clinton has said, Poland is ‘one of our closest allies.’ Poland was one of just three countries that entered Iraq with U.S. forces in 2003. It contributes forces for NATO’s KFOR mission in Kosovo. Polish forces have served in Afghanistan since the onset of the NATO mission in 2004.” Ambassador-Designate Feinstein summed up Poland’s special relationship with the US in this way: “In short, intrepid Polish forces stand with us in dangerous places with dangerous missions, and Poland has increased its contributions, which are prodigious.”

During World War II, Polish soldiers fought alongside of British and American soldiers against Nazi Germany. Those who understand how the Polish people feel about history and about America are reminded of Ambassador Arthur Bliss Lane who served in Poland from 1945 until 1947 during the Truman Administration, resigned, and wrote a book “I Saw Poland Betrayed.” He described what he saw as the betrayal of Poland by the Western Allies at the end of World War II, with President Franklin D. Roosevelt playing a major part in selling out of Poland to Stalin at the Yalta Conference. Fortunately, subsequent administrations and the American people rejected Roosevelt’s naive assessment of Stalin and supported America’s participation in the Cold War until the Soviet Union collapsed and Poland along with other Central European nations became a member of NATO. The people of Poland can take some comfort in knowing that American democracy eventually corrects even some of the gravest mistakes made by US presidents.

Even if President Obama’s ideological preferences pushed him to embrace Vladimir Putin and Dmitri Medvedev rather than listen to Lech Walesa and Waclav Havel, who had sent him a letter warning him about Russia’s dangerous slide into authoritarianism and imperial expansion, there was still room for observing basic diplomatic protocol and good manners. At a lower level of US diplomatic corps, where was the PAO (Public Affairs Officer) at the US Embassy in Warsaw and dozens of other foreign service officers, each costing US taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars? Where was the Polish Desk officer at the State Department? Where were all the public diplomacy experts President Obama had promised to bring on board to correct the mistakes of the Bush Administration, whom he accused of dealing harshly with the rest of the world and of not listening to what others were saying?

Well, the Obama Administration is now talking softly to Moscow, Iran, and Cuba. But what about Poland, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and other nations in Central and Eastern Europe which already are or want to be America’s allies? What about the future of independent and democratic Ukraine? Is Ukraine going to become like Russia? Where was in all of this President Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, his chief diplomatic advisor? We have also not heard much from Vice President Biden.

Ultimately, the US President is responsible for any foreign policy and public diplomacy disasters, but American diplomats should have managed the process and tried to soften the blow to Poland and other nations in the region. Perhaps they did warn the White House, and their warnings were ignored. This would still qualify as a failure of American diplomacy — the inability of State Department officials to affect something as simple as the timing of a critical announcement and selecting who should represent the United States at an important event abroad.

If warnings were issued to the White House and were disregarded, I hope we will soon find out. Comments from those who may know are welcome. Whatever happened, this will hurt President Obama politically among Polish-American voters and other Americans with roots in Central and Eastern Europe. With headlines like these, this diplomatic fiasco will likely have a negative political impact for the President and his party across the whole spectrum of the American electorate. But while President Obama may eventually pay a political price for the mistakes that were both his and the State Department’s, the damage to America’s reputation and credibility among our true allies abroad will be long-lasting and will not be easily undone.

This op-ed was written by Ted Lipien, president of Free Media Online (FreeMediaOnline.org), a 501(c)3 media nonprofit promoting media freedom worldwide. Republishing is allowed.

Wired Headline: Dear Poland, Happy Soviet Invasion Day, Love Uncle Sam

P.S. (TedLipien.com)

By the way, we are taking away the thing that could prevent another one. Hope you don’t mind. Too much.

The Washington Times Headline: Obama not smooth on Gdansk: German attack that started World War II marked without him

Polish Radio Headline: US snubs Poland over WW II ceremony?

DigitalJournal Headline: Opinion: Obama chose wrong day to abandon missile defence shield in Europe

Polish News Headline: OBAMA ABANDONS MISSILE DEFENSE FOR POLAND: Makes Controversial Move on the 70th Anniversary of Soviet Invasion of Poland

examiner.com San Francisco Headline: Obama betrays Poland and every American EXCELLENT VIDEOS!

Drudge Report Headline: September 17: Obama kills missile defense for Poland on 70th anniversary of Soviet invasion…
And countless blogs:

Mother. Of. ALL. Snubs. Obama and the Polish Joke

President Obama acknowledges the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland… …by cancelling the missile defense in Eastern Europe

Obama Celebrates 70th Anniversary of Soviet Invasion of Poland…

Obama to Allies: Drop Dead

Obama’s second Polish joke: the Obama Doctrine

Wikipedia

Soviet invasion of Poland

Dear Poland, Happy Soviet Invasion Day, Love Uncle Sam
Wired

While American and international media blames President Obama for choosing to announce his decision on the removal of the missile defense system from Poland and Czech Republic on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet attack on Poland on September 17, 1939, surprisingly so far no one has called it a failure of American diplomacy. What makes this failure even more disturbing is that neither the State Department nor the White House has drawn any lessons from an earlier public diplomacy disaster when they gave grave offence by sending to Poland a low-level delegation to participate in the 70th anniversary observances on September 1 of the start of World War II, a date also of great historical significance to the Polish people.

Both missteps were completely avoidable. Why add insult to injury? Why offend even more a loyal US ally in the war on terror who has contributed troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan?

There may be some who think that the Obama White House deliberately snubbed and punished Poland because Warsaw was one of the strongest supporters among NATO members of President Bush’s foreign policy. I don’t think this was the case. President Obama and his closest advisors may be naive and historically challenged, but they would not sacrifice American national interests in such a way. The additional humiliation of Poland was not deliberate. It was unplanned, and much of it was certainly unnecessary and avoidable.

If only one US diplomat, one foreign service officer at the State Department, did his or her job well, some of the international headlines making fun of President Obama’s lack of appreciation of history would not have been written. Where was the US Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Judith McHale, one of President Obama’s appointees? (Photo) Where was the US Ambassador to Poland Victor Ashe?

As President Bush’s holdover appointee who is leaving his post in Warsaw this week, Ambassador Ashe would not have much influence with the Obama White House anyway. But where was President Obama’s Ambassador-Designate to Poland Lee A. Feinstein? The Brookings Institution Visiting Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies and National Security Director to Hillary Rodham Clinton during her presidential campaign should have been already advising the Obama Administration on a host of issues, including the sensitive area of history and trust in US-Polish relations. His statement made to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on September 15, just two days before President Obama’s ill-timed announcement, shows a certain appreciation of Poland’s history.

“Poland has endured great hardship and tragedy in its history. It has been occupied and dismembered by foreign powers time and again. It experienced a brief period of independence after World War I, but then fell prey to Nazi invasion and occupation, during which six million Polish citizens lost their lives, including three million Jews, most of Poland’s Jewish population. Then, following the war, the Soviet regime deprived Poles of their political liberty and imposed an economic system that kept the country in poverty and subjugation.”

President Obama’s Ambassador-Designate to Poland Lee A. Feinstein, September 15, 2009

Ambassador-Designate Feinstein did not specifically mention the Soviet invasion of Poland on September 17, 1939, but he undoubtedly knew about it, and knew about President Obama’s pending missile shield announcement. He probably also knows that the Poles still remember how the US Administration of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had betrayed Poland to Russia at the end of World War II. I specifically refer to FDR and his administration, and not the American people who did not want to see Poland being sold to Stalin.

Lee Feinstein should have called the White House to offer friendly advice on Polish history and perhaps quote from another part of his earlier statement: “As Secretary Clinton has said, Poland is ‘one of our closest allies.’ Poland was one of just three countries that entered Iraq with U.S. forces in 2003. It contributes forces for NATO’s KFOR mission in Kosovo. Polish forces have served in Afghanistan since the onset of the NATO mission in 2004.” Ambassador-Designate Feinstein summed up Poland’s special relationship with the US in this way: “In short, intrepid Polish forces stand with us in dangerous places with dangerous missions, and Poland has increased its contributions, which are prodigious.”

During World War II, Polish soldiers fought alongside of British and American soldiers against Nazi Germany. Those who understand how the Polish people feel about history and about America are reminded of Ambassador Arthur Bliss Lane who served in Poland from 1945 until 1947 during the Truman Administration, resigned, and wrote a book “I Saw Poland Betrayed.” He described what he saw as the betrayal of Poland by the Western Allies at the end of World War II, with President Franklin D. Roosevelt playing a major part in selling out of Poland to Stalin at the Yalta Conference. Fortunately, subsequent administrations and the American people rejected Roosevelt’s naive assessment of Stalin and supported America’s participation in the Cold War until the Soviet Union collapsed and Poland along with other Central European nations became a member of NATO. The people of Poland can take some comfort in knowing that American democracy eventually corrects even some of the gravest mistakes made by US presidents.

Even if President Obama’s ideological preferences pushed him to embrace Vladimir Putin and Dmitri Medvedev rather than listen to Lech Walesa and Waclav Havel, who had sent him a letter warning him about Russia’s dangerous slide into authoritarianism and imperial expansion, there was still room for observing basic diplomatic protocol and good manners. At a lower level of US diplomatic corps, where was the PAO (Public Affairs Officer) at the US Embassy in Warsaw and dozens of other foreign service officers, each costing US taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars? Where was the Polish Desk officer at the State Department? Where were all the public diplomacy experts President Obama had promised to bring on board to correct the mistakes of the Bush Administration, whom he accused of dealing harshly with the rest of the world and of not listening to what others were saying?

Well, the Obama Administration is now talking softly to Moscow, Iran, and Cuba. But what about Poland, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and other nations in Central and Eastern Europe which already are or want to be America’s allies? What about the future of independent and democratic Ukraine? Is Ukraine going to become like Russia? Where was in all of this President Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, his chief diplomatic advisor? We have also not heard much from Vice President Biden.

Ultimately, the US President is responsible for any foreign policy and public diplomacy disasters, but American diplomats should have managed the process and tried to soften the blow to Poland and other nations in the region. Perhaps they did warn the White House, and their warnings were ignored. This would still qualify as a failure of American diplomacy — the inability of State Department officials to affect something as simple as the timing of a critical announcement and selecting who should represent the United States at an important event abroad.

If warnings were issued to the White House and were disregarded, I hope we will soon find out. Comments from those who may know are welcome. Whatever happened, this will hurt President Obama politically among Polish-American voters and other Americans with roots in Central and Eastern Europe. With headlines like these, this diplomatic fiasco will likely have a negative political impact for the President and his party across the whole spectrum of the American electorate. But while President Obama may eventually pay a political price for the mistakes that were both his and the State Department’s, the damage to America’s reputation and credibility among our true allies abroad will be long-lasting and will not be easily undone.

This op-ed was written by Ted Lipien, president of Free Media Online (FreeMediaOnline.org), a 501(c)3 media nonprofit promoting media freedom worldwide. Republishing is allowed.

Wired Headline: Dear Poland, Happy Soviet Invasion Day, Love Uncle Sam

P.S. (TedLipien.com)

By the way, we are taking away the thing that could prevent another one. Hope you don’t mind. Too much.

The Washington Times Headline: Obama not smooth on Gdansk: German attack that started World War II marked without him

Polish Radio Headline: US snubs Poland over WW II ceremony?

DigitalJournal Headline: Opinion: Obama chose wrong day to abandon missile defence shield in Europe

Polish News Headline: OBAMA ABANDONS MISSILE DEFENSE FOR POLAND: Makes Controversial Move on the 70th Anniversary of Soviet Invasion of Poland

examiner.com San Francisco Headline: Obama betrays Poland and every American EXCELLENT VIDEOS!

Drudge Report Headline: September 17: Obama kills missile defense for Poland on 70th anniversary of Soviet invasion…
And countless blogs:

Mother. Of. ALL. Snubs. Obama and the Polish Joke

President Obama acknowledges the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland… …by cancelling the missile defense in Eastern Europe

Obama Celebrates 70th Anniversary of Soviet Invasion of Poland…

Obama to Allies: Drop Dead

Obama’s second Polish joke: the Obama Doctrine

Wikipedia

Soviet invasion of Poland

FreeMediaOnline.org, Free Media Online Blog, GovoritAmerika.us, August 13, 2009, San Francisco — A report by a senior Voice of America (VOA) correspondent, posted online today, shows a high level of confusion over the Obama Administration’s new policy of “resetting” relations with Russia. While the report by VOA’s Andre de Nesnera focuses on statements by Vice President Biden, which have “angered” Russian officials, and on apparent divisions within the Administration over Russia policy, it does not address a number of recent Russian actions and statements, which other analysts saw as a clear challenge to President Obama after his recent visit to Moscow. They included a stern videotaped warning to Ukraine’s pro-Western president, Victor Yushchenko, delivered earlier this week by President Medvedev.

Президент России>>

The content and the harsh tone of President Medvedev’s video message to Ukraine was in sharp contrast with a number of friendly and hopeful statements from President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton, offering a “reset” in U.S.-Russian relations.

VOA report quoted a number of American analysts, including Stephen Jones, a Russia expert from Mount Holyoke College, and Robert Legvold at Columbia University, who are critical of Vice President Biden’s statements made in a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal. In that interview, the U.S. Vice President suggested that Russia’s economic and social weakness would force the Kremlin to make concessions to the West on key national security issues. VOA’s Andre de Nesnera did not cite any comments in defense of Vice President Biden’s statements, which he had made after his visit to Ukraine and Georgia.

The VOA correspondent asserted in his report that after Vice President Biden’s interview with the Wall Street Journal, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had tried to “head off a dispute with Moscow” during an appearance on (NBC’s) television program Meet the Press. She told the American TV network that “We want what the president called for during his recent Moscow summit. We want a strong, peaceful and prosperous Russia. Now there is an enormous amount of work to be done between the United States and Russia,” said Clinton.

VOA’s de Nesnera also quotes Ronald Suny, at the University of Chicago, as saying that “the Russians have a point.” According to Ronald Suny “The Russians are extremely sensitive. They are looking for signals. They don’t know what to expect from this new government in Washington. And so they were very well pleased, it seemed, by Obama’s visit. And then the [vice president's] trip comes and these statements are made – and the Russians are now upset again. And they are asking, in a way, what are the signals? Which signals are we to take to be the real signals? And I’m as much at a loss as they are,” he said.

Other American experts, however, see the Kremlin’s recent actions as highly provocative and designed to regain Russia’s former imperial control over now independent countries like Ukraine and Georgia. They also point out that nationalistic and anti-American rhetoric serves the power interests of the current Russian leadership and will continue regardless of the Obama Administration’s wish for a “reset” in the bilateral relationship.

The Voice of America is a taxpayer-funded U.S. international broadcaster managed by the bipartisan Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). De Nesnera’s report was translated into Russian and posted on the VOA Russian-language website. VOA no longer broadcasts, however, on-air radio and television newscasts in Russian. They were terminated by the BBG in July 2008, just 12 days before Russian troops attacked the Republic of Georgia in a territorial dispute.

Voice of America Report Biden Remarks Anger Russian Officials
By Andre de Nesnera
Washington
13 August 2009

Recent statements by Vice President Joe Biden have angered Russian officials.

Vice President Biden recently told the Wall Street Journal that – in his words – the Russians “have a shrinking population base, have a withering economy, have a banking sector and structure that is not likely to be able to withstand the next 15 years.” He then suggested that all these trends would force Russia to make concessions to the West on key national security issues.

Mr. Biden made those statements following a trip to Ukraine and Georgia. Several weeks earlier, President Barack Obama held a Moscow summit with his Russian counterpart, Dmitri Medvedev – a meeting whose main goal was to reset U.S.-Russian relations on a positive footing.

Most analysts agree that was achieved. But they also say Mr. Biden’s statements represented a different kind of tone from the one that was taken by Mr. Obama in Moscow.

Stephen Jones, a Russia expert from Mount Holyoke College (in Hadley, Massachusetts), says the vice president was in a sense writing off Russia as a significant power.

“Russia, of course, is going through a very serious economic situation. Its prospects are not good in terms of the demographic situation, and the energy situation too because Gazprom is very inefficient and oil production is declining. But Russia is still enormously powerful in the region. And when Russia has its back to the wall, it can certainly pursue some very strong, even aggressive policies at times. So that sort of statement, I think, is rather exaggerated and rather naïve in many ways,” he said.

Vice President Biden’s remarks hit a raw nerve with Russian officials. Sergei Prikhodko, a senior Kremlin foreign policy adviser, said “it raised the question who is shaping U.S. foreign policy -the president or members of his team?”

Robert Legvold at Columbia University, agrees. “It has raised a lot of questions both in the Russian media and even in the western media about whether the administration is singing from the same page. And if the page they are singing from is the same, and it is the Biden message – then are we hearing from Biden what they really think and from Obama what the diplomatic gloss is that he means to put on the relationship. That, I think, has created – at least for the moment – something of a problem,” he said.

Ronald Suny, at the University of Chicago, says the Russians have a point. “The Russians are extremely sensitive. They are looking for signals. They don’t know what to expect from this new government in Washington. And so they were very well pleased, it seemed, by Obama’s visit. And then the [vice president's] trip comes and these statements are made – and the Russians are now upset again. And they are asking, in a way, what are the signals? Which signals are we to take to be the real signals? And I’m as much at a loss as they are,” he said.

Shortly after the interview was published, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tried to head off a dispute with Moscow during an appearance on (NBC’s) Meet the Press. “We want what the president called for during his recent Moscow summit. We want a strong, peaceful and prosperous Russia. Now there is an enormous amount of work to be done between the United States and Russia,” he said.

Secretary Clinton said Moscow and Washington are working to reduce their nuclear arsenals – and are collaborating on the key issues of North Korea and Iran. “And so there is an enormous amount of hard work being done. And we view Russia as a great power,” he said.

Some analysts say Mrs. Clinton’s remarks were an attempt at damage control at a time when relations between Washington and Moscow are at a sensitive stage given the new U.S. administration and the issues facing both countries.

July 16, 2009

Yesterday, Russia lost one of its most remarkable citizens, Natalya Estemirova. I was shocked and saddened to learn of her murder and my heart goes out to her family and to her colleagues at Memorial. Natalya was a tireless crusader for the rights and dignity of all individuals. All of us who knew her deeply respected her and her work, and many Americans have asked me to express their condolences to her family.

Natalya understood the danger of her work in Chechnya, but refused to be intimidated. Natalya’s courage and dedication are sources of inspiration; she will truly be missed. We fully support every effort to bring those responsible for this cowardly crime to justice. Natalya would expect that of us.

Заявление посла Джона Байерли в связи с убийством Натальи Эстемировой – Посольствo США в Москве

16 июля 2009 года

Вчера Россия потеряла одну из самых замечательных своих граждан – Наталью Эстемирову. Я был шокирован и опечален известием о ее убийстве и от всего сердца выражаю свои соболезнования ее семье и коллегам по обществу «Мемориал». Наталья была неутомимым борцом за права и достоинство всех людей. Те из нас, кто знал ее лично, глубоко уважали ее и то, что она делала, и многие американцы просили меня передать соболезнования ее семье от их имени.

Наталья понимала опасность своей работы в Чечне, но ее было не запугать. Храбрость Натальи и ее самоотдача внушали вдохновение. Нам будет искренне ее не хватать. Мы поддерживаем все усилия по привлечению к ответу всех виновных в этом трусливом преступлении. Наталья хотела бы, чтобы мы сделали это. Посольствo США в Москве>>

Выбор ГоворитАмерика.us GovoritAmerika.us. Вы можете скопировать и использовать эту статью, You can copy and use this report. Подписка на рассылку ГоворитАмерика.us.

Ian Kelly
Spokesman
Bureau of Public Affairs
Washington, DC
July 15, 2009

The United States is deeply saddened by reports of the abduction and murder of respected human rights activist Natalya Estemirova. We call upon the Russian government to bring those responsible to justice.

A member of the NGO Memorial HRC in the North Caucasus, Natalya Estemirova was uncompromising in her willingness to reveal the truth regardless of where that might lead. She was devoted to shining a light on human rights abuses, particularly in Chechnya, and received a number of international awards for her brave work, including the 2007 Anna Politkovskaya prize by the Nobel Women’s Initiative and awards from the Swedish and European parliaments. We extend our deepest sympathies to her family.

Убийство правозащитника Натальи Эстемировой – Заявление Иана Келли, пресс-секретаря Государственного департамента США

15 июля 2009 г.
Соединенные Штаты с глубокой скорбью восприняли сообщение о похищении и убийстве известного правозащитника Натальи Эстемировой. Мы призываем правительство России привлечь виновных к ответственности.

Участник правозащитного движения «Мемориал», работавшая на Северном Кавказе, Наталья Эстемирова была бескомпромиссна в своем намерении говорить правду независимо от того, куда она может привести. Она решительно придавала гласности нарушения прав человека, особенно в Чечне. Ее смелая деятельность была отмечена рядом международных наград, в том числе наградой имени Анны Политковской, которую она получила от «Нобелевской женской инициативы» в 2007 году, а также наградами парламента Швеции и Европейского парламента. Мы выражаем наши самые искренние соболезнования семье Натальи Эстемировой. Посольствo США в Москве>>

Выбор ГоворитАмерика.us GovoritAmerika.us. Вы можете скопировать и использовать эту статью, You can copy and use this report. Подписка на рассылку ГоворитАмерика.us.

The more languages and venues we communicate in, the more respect we show for our audience, the more effective we will be. Under Secretary McHale

“Whether we are strengthening old alliances, forging new partnerships to meet complex global challenges, engaging with citizens and civil society, or charting new strategies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, our national interests depend on effective engagement and innovative public diplomacy.” - Full Text

Download Free Photo – Вы можете скачать эту фотографию

President Barack Obama meets with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in the Oval Office of the White House May 7, 2009. Official White House Photo by Pete Souza. “Today the President met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, picking up on the diplomatic foundation laid during the President’s trip to Europe a month ago,” reads a post on the White House website blog. “They spoke briefly to the press afterwards, both expressing an optimistic tone,” according to the White House, although on the official White House photo they don’t look happy or comfortable with one another. Read more on the White House website.

Download Free Photo – Вы можете скачать эту фотографию

GovoritAmerika.us observed that Foreign Minister Lavrov does not look happy next to Secretary Clinton. He also did not look pleased during his meeting at the White House with President Obama.

Remarks by Secretary Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov After Their Meeting. State Dept Photo by Michael Gross. "Serious and Open Exchanges With Russia." This is how the meeting was described on the State Department’s website. Secretary Clinton (May 7): "We exchanged views on a range of important issues, from Afghanistan, North Korea, the Middle East, Iran, so many other areas where we have common interests and common concerns, even on areas where our views may diverge. We both want to achieve stability and security in Georgia. We are both committed to the NATO-Russia Council to open up another important channel of dialogue. And we are very focused on making sure that the United States and Russia have a very vigorous ongoing dialogue among our two governments."

Read more on the U.S. State Department website.

Выбор ГоворитАмерика.us GovoritAmerika.us. Вы можете скопировать и использовать эту статью. You can copy and use this report. Подписка на рассылку ГоворитАмерика.us.

GovoritAmerika.us

U.S. remembers journalists who were killed in quest to make truth known

No country should be complacent about violence against journalists. In the United States, we witnessed in 2007 the shocking murder of an investigative reporter, Chauncey Bailey, in California. The full dimensions of this crime are only slowly being unraveled as the investigation, and the controversy over its handling by local law enforcement authorities, continues. In 2008, six journalists were killed in OSCE participating States because of their work, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. We call on these OSCE participating States to hold the killers accountable. According to that same NGO, sixteen journalists have been murdered in the Russian Federation alone since 1999 because of their reporting on crime, unrest, and corruption. Of these sixteen killings, only one case has been resolved. U.S. State Department (America.gov)>>

Выбор ГоворитАмерика.us GovoritAmerika.us. Вы можете скопировать и использовать эту статью. You can copy and use this report. Подписка на рассылку ГоворитАмерика.us.

GovoritAmerika.us

Media rights activists comment on World Press Freedom Day

Washington — If journalists are persecuted, imprisoned or killed, society as a whole is the victim, say media and democracy advocates speaking in advance of World Press Freedom Day.

The United Nations highlighted the importance of a free media by establishing World Press Freedom Day in 1993, setting aside May 3 each year to remember slain and imprisoned journalists. This year’s theme is the safety of journalists.

Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Karen Stewart told America.gov that “by attacking journalists you are attacking a very basic fundamental of a free society,” the right of citizens to have free and open access to information.

“And without those freedoms you cannot have democracy,” the former ambassador to Belarus said April 27. In Belarus, “the embassy worked very hard to support journalists in very trying, repressive circumstances with programs like legal assistance training and funding of external radio operations.” U.S. State Department (America.gov)>>

Выбор ГоворитАмерика.us GovoritAmerika.us. Вы можете скопировать и использовать эту статью. You can copy and use this report. Подписка на рассылку ГоворитАмерика.us.

John Brown

Obama may be popular abroad, but it won’t be so easy for his new public diplomacy secretary to improve America’s image

John Brown, a  US Foreign Service officer for more than 20 years currently affiliated with Georgetown University,  argues in an article published in guardian.co.uk that Judith McHale, the Obama administration’s pick for an under-secretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs faces a number of big challenges for which she may not be fully prepared. More in guardian.co.uk

 FreeMediaOnline.org, Free Media Online Blog,  GovoritAmerika.us, April 6, 2009, San Francisco –During President Obama’s most recent visit to Europe, the White House website was rarely updated with news reports and photos and had no new entries at all on Sunday, April 5 when the President was visiting Prague, the Czech Republic, where he made an important foreign policy speech in which he called for a nuclear free world. The very few new postings and photos on the White House website during the trip appeared often many hours and sometimes days after similar important events took place.

For at least a couple of days after President Obama’s meeting with Russia’s President Dmitry Medvedev, there was no official photo of the two leaders on the White House website. The meeting took place in London April 1,  ahead of the G20 summit. During President Obama’s trip to Europe, the slide presentation on the White House website prominently featured photo’s from Vice President Biden’s earlier trip to Latin America. The State Department website did not post any official photos from Secretary Clinton’s meetings during the most recent European trip.

Screenshot of the White House website on Sunday, April 5, 2009, 9PM EST shows that it had not been updated for more than 24 hours while President Obama was visiting Prague, the Czech Republic and making an important foreign policy speech.

It appears that the Obama Administration officials were not prepared for the usual public and media outreach expected from the White House during presidential trips abroad. They also could not count on much support from the State Department. During the previous two administrations, U.S. government’s public relations functions abroad, also referred to as public diplomacy, were eliminated or outsourced to private contractors.

The United States Information Agency (USIA), which was responsible for public diplomacy, and could have provided guidance to the new White House staff, was abolished in 1999. USIA’s international broadcasting functions were moved to the newly created Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), and its exchange and non-broadcasting information functions were given to the newly-created Under Secretary of State for Public Affairs and Public Diplomacy. Many U.S. diplomats with experience in media relations were assigned to other diplomatic and administrative positions and much of their expertise has been lost.

During the Bush Administration, the BBG, rated in a recent Office of Personnel Management (OPM) survey as the worst-managed Federal agency, and a succession of political appointees at the State Department, increasingly relied on private contractors to conduct U.S. government’s public relations and international broadcasting functions, often with disastrous results.

Charlotte Beers, Bush’s first appointee as the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, was a former Madison Avenue advertising executive. She launched a privately produced magazine targeted at Arab youth and TV commercials featuring American Muslims speaking about the tolerance and happiness of life  in the United States. Both initiatives, which cost U.S. taxpayers millions of dollars, were complete flops.

Bush’s last appointee to this position, James K. Glassman, was responsible in his earlier function as the BBG chairman for ending Voice of America (VOA) Russian-language radio broadcasts just 12 days before Russia’s military incursion into the Republic of Georgia last summer. As a result of the BBG’s decisions under his chairmanship, VOA’s audience reach in Russia registered an unprecedented 98% drop in just one year. (From 7.3% in 2007 to  est. 0.2% in 2009.)

One bright spot during President Obama’s European trip was the effort by some of the U.S. embassies to provide media with background information and official copyright-free photos that were missing from the main State Department website. The U.S. missions in London and Prague offered extensive photo galleries and additional useful materials for journalists.

Screenshot of the State Department's official blog on Monday, April 6, 2009, 3AM EST shows that it has not been updated since Friday while Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama continued their European trip.

View U.S. Embassy in Prague Photo Gallery

The State Department website and the websites of the U.S. embassies in the other countries visited by President Obama provided only basic information and copyrighted AP photographs. The State Department’s official Dipnote Blog was not updated Saturday, April 4, or Sunday. April 5, and on previous days offered mostly AP photos.

State Department officials in Washington are not accustomed to working on weekends. During Secretary Clinton’s earlier visit to Europe, it took several days before the State Department website posted an official photo from her meeting in Geneva with Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. 

Unfortunately for foreign journalists and bloggers who may have expected a copyright-free photo and more background information from the State Department website, the Clinton-Lavrov meeting also took place just before the weekend. Because of budget cuts and other restrictions imposed by the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the Russian Service of the Voice of America did not have money to send its reporter to Geneva to cover the meeting. It did mange, however, to send a reporter to Europe with President Obama and provided timely coverage. The performance of the White House and the State Department in terms of information delivery and public diplomacy during President Obama’s European trip on the other hand left much to be desired.

Выбор ГоворитАмерика.usGovoritAmerika.us. Вы можете скопировать и использовать эту статью. You can copy and use this report.

In a statement delivered to the OSCE Permanent Council in Vienna on April 2, U.S. Chargé d’ Affaires Kyle Scott responded to the Russian delegation’s report on violence against journalists.

Thank you Madame Chairwoman.

I had not intended to take the floor a second time, but I am very grateful to the Russian Ambassador for bringing us down to facts and incidents because I think that it helps to illustrate the overall problem, which is recognized in Mr. Haraszti’s report, which is the all-too-frequent attacks on journalists and the all-too-little prosecution of people for those attacks.

He raised many cases which have a little bit more historical importance, but with regard to the case raised by the Ambassador in the United States, that is, the killing of journalist Chauncey Bailey, I’m pleased to report to the Permanent Council that immediately after that murder took place, the police launched an extensive investigation. It led to the arrest of one Mr. Broussard, who confessed to the shooting. It is true he later recanted that confession, but he still remains in custody and, in fact, was scheduled to go to trial this month. According to press reports, his lawyer requested another delay in the trial date to allow him to further prepare his case. But that’s the sort of action that we believe necessary in cases of violence against journalists: an immediate and resolute investigation. Yes, it is true a case may not always be resolved, but it shows the need for full work.

Just as we saw with the attack of human rights activist Lev Ponomariov a few days ago, we were very pleased to see the immediate reaction of the authorities, with the Head of the Moscow Police in fact taking charge of the investigation into the attack.

We think that’s the sort of reaction that is necessary because the series of attacks on press officials and on human rights activists has a clearly chilling effect on the development of civil society in Russia.

We’ve heard, of course, all of the cases. The Representative from Russia seemed to think that there was some sort of focus only in one direction or another, but I think it’s the trends that are so worrying, and that have been highlighted by Mr. Haraszti in his case. We hear so much about Anna Politkovskaya and the problems of Novaya Gazeta, and they are very serious, and ones which I think the Freedom of Media Representative has rightly highlighted. But it’s very unfortunate that they are not alone. Local and regional journalists seem to be facing the similar problems of physical attacks on them and the failure — or inability — of the authorities to investigate thoroughly.

Just in the last few days, a journalist from a local paper in the outskirts of Moscow, Sergei Protazanov, was brutally beaten and later died. The investigation into this one seems to be of mixed results, with some saying he died as a result of his beating and others saying that he died as a result of poisoning. Clearly, this is an area which needs work. Mr. Pultazonov worked for a paper, Grazhdanskaya Soglasia, which was investigating charges of fraud in the local elections in Khimkhi. Unfortunately, it’s not an isolated incident.

On November 13, Mikhail Bekatov, editor of Khimkhinskaya Pravda was severely beaten. His lawyer, Stanislav Marakov, as we know because this issue was raised in the Permanent Council, was shot dead on the streets of Moscow alongside another journalist.

The editor of Grazhdanskaya Soglasia was stabbed 10 times outside his home in February of 2008. His attackers remain at large.

On February 3, the editor in chief of Solichkoski Forum, a newspaper in the nearby city of Solichnogosk, was assaulted.

On March 12, a managing editor of Volnya Yuzhnaya Prognos Pod Moskovoi was beaten in the Moscow oblast city of Serblukov.

I raise these issues because they reveal a very disturbing trend here. We call upon all countries to realize the importance of the contribution of journalism and especially investigative journalism to the creation of a democratic society and towards valuable checks of the power of authorities. When journalists are attacked, it’s not just the person who is attacked; it is in fact the institution of freedom of expression that is under attack. It is inherent on authorities to investigate with all vigour, and we would like to encourage all countries to ensure that their authorities are taking this matter seriously and engaging seriously on it.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

 FreeMediaOnline.org & Free Media Online Blog, March 16, 2009, San Francisco — U.S. Ambassador to Moscow John Beyrle was interviewed on the Voice of Russia, the Russian state radio broadcaster. The interview was also aired on Radio Mayak, Vesti FM and Vesti-24 TV

As announced by the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, “‘Moving from words to deeds’ was the theme of a wide-ranging radio interview given by Ambassador Beyrle to Russian state radio on March 12.” The U.S. Embassy website reported that the Ambassador talked about the outcome of the recent meeting between Secretary Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, and the upcoming meeting between President Obama and President Medvedev.

U.S. Embassy in Moscow>>

Also see  Интервью посла США в РФ Джона Байерли радиостанции «Голос России» on GovoritAmerika.us.

 ГоворитАмерика.us GovoritAmerika.us - Всесторонний Анализ Новостей из США – U.S.-Russia Multisource News Analysis

 FreeMediaOnline.org & Free Media Online Blog, March 11, 2009, San Francisco

Now, I know a little bit about the role that – (laughter) – Michelle Obama is filling now. And I have to say that in a very short time, she has, through her grace and her wisdom, become an inspiration to women and girls not only in the United States, but around the world. And it is so fitting that she would join us here at the State Department to celebrate the achievements of other extraordinary women, and to show her commitment to supporting women and girls around the globe.

U.S. State Department>>

Международный женский день

Вероника Марченко, председатель фонда “Право матери”, защищающего права военнослужащих, погибших при исполнении служебных обязанностей, стала первой российской женщиной, удостоенной международной награды госсекретаря США “Women of Courage” («Смелая женщина»).

Посольствo США в Москве>>

Ms. Veronika Marchenko (Russia)

Veronika Marchenko is the head of the NGO Mother’s Right, and has demonstrated exceptional bravery and leadership in exposing the truth surrounding the disturbing peacetime deaths within the Russian armed forces. Ms. Marchenko has successfully sought justice on behalf of bereaved families of servicemen who died as a result of cruel and inhumane conditions.

Ms. Mutabar Tadjibayeva (Uzbekistan)
Imprisoned for criticizing her government’s handling of events surrounding the 2005 violence in the city of Andijon, Mutabar Tadjibayeva refuses to be silenced. She has returned to human rights advocacy, and remains a fearless critic of human rights abuses.

U.S. State Department>>

(New York) — Russian law-enforcement authorities should ensure that neo-Nazi groups stop their threats against a leading Russian NGO and hold the perpetrators accountable, Human Rights Watch said today.

Human Rights Watch>>

There were numerous reports of government and societal human rights problems and abuses during the year. The government’s human rights record remained poor in the North Caucasus, where governments in Ingushetiya and Dagestan faced increased opposition from disaffected social groups and insurgencies, and the Chechen government forcibly reined in the Islamist insurgency that replaced the separatist insurgency as the main source of conflict. Security forces reportedly engaged in killings, torture, abuse, violence, and other brutal or humiliating treatment, often with impunity.

Government pressure weakened freedom of expression and media independence, particularly of the major television networks. Five journalists were killed during the year, in one case in Ingushetiya by police. Unresolved killings of journalists remained a problem. As some print and Internet media reflected a widening range of views, the government restricted media freedom through direct ownership of media outlets, pressuring the owners of major media outlets to abstain from critical coverage, and harassing and intimidating journalists into practicing self-censorship.

U.S. State Department>>

My initial reaction to the PD experts’ sense of urgency, as a former US diplomat, was to share it fully: We must do something big for PD after Bush! It must be done right away!