For the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), the federal agency that runs the Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) and other stations broadcasting news to the world with U.S. taxpayers’ money, the public opinion that matters is mostly abroad.

These stations provide uncensored news to many countries without free media and some, specifically the Voice of America, also represent the United States — the full spectrum of American opinions — as part of VOA’s mission. These stations are not in the public diplomacy business per se, but their news reporting and the image they project adds to the overall U.S. public diplomacy message in various countries.

If you are a foreign national and the news gets out that your U.S. government employer mistreats you and takes advantage of you, it’s not a good thing for America’s reputation abroad. Journalists talk to other journalists who in turn publish what they hear from their colleagues.

If the U.S. government employer claims that its activities reflect American values and help other nations transition to media freedom and democracy, the gap between actions and words becomes even more apparent.

The Broadcasting Board of Governors executive staff has never cared about such things. They have ignored the public impact of their actions for years as they continued to exploit foreign born and U.S. visa status journalists, denied them basic rights and got away with it until now.

But the news about their mistreatment of employees is now leaking out, bad press in many countries intensifies, and court cases pile up, including one at the European Human Rights Court in Strasbourg. Even pro-American foreign politicians speak out in defense of journalists mistreated and exploited by the BBG. This is not the kind of public diplomacy the U.S. needs. Yet, the BBG executive staff has remained unmoved.

But the tide may be turning against the BBG managers now working for the director of the International Broadcasting Bureau Richard Lobo. The fact that BBG employees rate their managers as being the worst leaders in the entire U.S. government, as reflected in the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) surveys, has caught the attention of BBG member Ambassador Victor Ashe. He started meeting with employees and urged other BBG members to do the same.

Ashe reported at the BBG meeting held last week in Miami that Board members have learned about management practices that were hidden in the closet for many years. He also said that Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Tara Sonenshine, who represented Secretary of State Clinton at the BBG meeting in Miami, made valuable suggestions on public input into the Agency’s operations. Another BBG member Susan McCue suggested that instead of cutting programs, the management should look for savings in “management.” At the same meeting, the Board reversed their staff’s recommendation to eliminate Voice of America radio broadcasts to Tibet and to close down the VOA Cantonese Service. The decision to reverse the Tibet and China cuts was announced by Governor Michael Meehan.

It appears that BBG members are finally beginning to realize that they themselves have been the victims of their own staff which has been responsible for numerous blunders, such as the proposal to end VOA radio to Tibet, but also for constantly proposing to cut programs, expanding their own bureaucracy at the expense of programming, and exploiting foreign journalists to maintain their positions and power.

The scheme devised by BBG executives involves cutting or reducing broadcasts, firing regular employees and replacing them with contractors who are paid very little, are denied basic employment benefits and can’t defend themselves effectively against abuses by the management.

Thanks to Governor Ashe’s efforts, BBG members and IBB director Richard Lobo have been hearing from some of these contractors at the Voice of America. For the first time, BBG members have met with union representatives. As Governor Ashe said, they have learned things they would rather not hear about, but things they should know. Exploitation and discrimination of foreign-born contractors was one of many topics which were discussed.

But neither employees nor their union are convinced that the current top BBG/IBB managers can be reformed. Most recently, the union representing BBG employees, AFGE Local 1812, posted an item on its website on the continuec Agency’s abuse of its J-1 Visa status journalists. It reads:

“Every so often there is case that so perfectly illustrates the mistreatment of employees committed by the BBG/IBB/VOA management that it needs to be told. The way this management has mistreated people that they brought into this country via the inappropriate use of the J-1 Visa process (known for good reason as the “nanny visa”) is appalling. Unfortunately the example below is not a singular case. There have been others that this management has sent packing in a similar manner. These former employees now have a very low opinion of the United States Government; if not America itself (although it needs to be pointed out that Sumaira has not indicated any ill will towards anyone at this point). I believe that the BBG/IBB/VOA management, by treating their J-1 Visa holders the way they do, turn these once enthusiastic promoters of America and our values into less than enthusiastic admirers of this country. In this way the management under the BBG undermines the Voice of America’s purpose, at least to the extent that we are supposed to promote good will towards this country and our ideals. I cannot vouch for everything she states but I can state that when the head of the H.R. office was asked what would have happened if Sumaira left the country when she was first informed that her visa had expired, she me told that there would not have been a reconsideration appeal because the Agency would not sponsor her to bring her back. In addition, the deciding official who heard Sumaira’s appeal did not sign the decision letter. One has to wonder why. I was a witness to Sumaira’s appeal and believe a third party decision maker would have thrown out the Agency’s allegations completely. Read Sumaira’s account by clicking on the title of this story.” Agency Abuse of J-1 Visa

Snjezana Pelivan is suing RFE/RL and BBG at the European Court of Human Rights

Then there is the longstanding discrimination of foreign-born journalists employed as contractors by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty at their headquarters in Prague, the Czech Republic. The Broadcasting Board of Governors executives devised a scheme of depriving these journalists of the protections they could receive under the current Czech labor law. That way they can fire them at will without any explanation and they can do that — they claim — under the communist-era rules that exempted certain foreign employers (It used to be Soviet companies in communist-run Czechoslovakia.) from some of the local laws and regulations.

This cynical abuse of the Czech legal system by the BBG has been a public diplomacy disaster abroad for the United States, but somehow it escaped the attention of most U.S. media and U.S. public officials.

Anna Karapetian is suing RFE/RL in Czech courts

This scandal has, however, been reported on widely by foreign media in some of the countries where RFE/RL operates. One case of a former RFE/RL employee Snjezana Pelivan has reached the European Court of Human Rights. Another case filed by an Armenian journalist Anna Karapetian is being reviewed by the courts in the Czech Republic. Both plaintiffs are women. They claim they were denied the protections of the Czech labor law because they were foreigners employed and then dismissed by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. RFE/RL was merely following personnel policies set by BBG executives.

The husband of one of the women, himself a distinguished former RFE/RL editor and commentator, wrote a letter about the impact of this BBG policy on America’s image abroad. He provided a list of foreign media titles highly negative toward the United States as they reported on these court cases. The letter was addressed to the newly sworn in Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Tara Sonenshine.  The author of the letter Lev Roitman is the husband of Snjezana Pelivan whose case against RFE/RL and the BBG is pending before the European Court of Human Rights.  Roitman is a former RFE/RL senior commentator. He retired in 2005,after thirty years with RFE/RL in New York, Munich, and Prague.

“Please accept my congratulations on your confirmation by Senate as the next Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy. Hopefully, you will achieve better results for the United States than the kaleidoscope of your predecessors in that position.

 

In particular, the Secretary of State serves ex officio as a member of BBG and of RFE/RL’s

Board of Directors. You will represent her in that critical segment of U.S. public diplomacy.

For your predecessors, it was just a ceremonial and burdensome chore. The results of such a “leadership” (to use a politically correct word) are devastating to American image abroad.

 

Enclosed please find an Open Letter

At Broadcasting Board of Governors and Radio Free Europe/Liberty –Public Diplomacy is Public Scandal at Public Expense

It was delivered in hard copies to the listed addresses. On January 24th, the Open Letter was published and widely multiplied by Internet.

 

On January 27th, Mr. Walter Isaacson resigned as the BBG Chairman. Otherwise, nothing changed since then. Just the list of scandalous for the United States international publications (follows) grew longer. It is your task now to stop that cancerous grows of negative publicity.

 

I wish you real achievements in public diplomacy. You may start by confronting the self-serving BBG bureaucracy — for immediate benefit to our country.

 

“Abbreviated List of international publications (in Czech, Serbo-Croatian, English, Russian, Armenian, etc.) condemning RFE/RL discriminative personnel policies practiced in the Czech Republic”:

“At Broadcasting Board of Governors and Radio Free Europe/Liberty –

Public Diplomacy is Public Scandal at Public Expense,” 

“Snjezana Pelivan asks Croatian government to support her legal claim in Strasbourg,” 

“’Prague winter’ for USA’s Radio Free Europe/Liberty,”

“A Spectre (ghost) Haunts ‘Free Europe’ ,”

“A Letter from Prague: Two Women Fighting to Uphold America’s Principles at America’s Radio,”

“Samizdat at Radio Free Europe/ Liberty describes discrimination against foreigners, women,”

“American Radio Free Europe violates equal rights of its foreign employees in Prague,”

“U.S.-Funded Radio Free Europe Invokes Communist Law to Violate the Will of Congress,”

“American RFE/RL Fights in Courts against Armenian Journalist. And Scores Against America,”

“From RFE/RL: Immorality as a Matter of Policy,”

“Czech Court Rules Against RFE/RL in Suit by Dismissed Armenian Employee,”

“In handcuffs of ‘Liberty’,”

“Czech Court to American Radio Free Europe: No Use for U.S. Laws in the Czech Republic.         Hillary Clinton Will Not Be Asked to Testify,”

“Czech Court Rules RFE/RL Cannot Discriminate Against Its Own Foreign Journalists,”

“Radio Liberty Betrays Its Ideals,”

“Czech Supreme Court Rules Against Radio Free Europe. Karapetian’s Case Returned for New Consideration”,

“It’s the Morality, Stupid,”

“Radio Free Europe – Task for Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg,”

“Radio Free Europe – Guantanamo in Prague,”

“Armenian journalist appeals to Obama to Protect Rights of Foreign Journalists at U.S. Government-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty,”  

“Equality With Precondition. Practice of Free Europe Contradicts Its Ideals,”

“U.S. Attorney General is Asked to Investigate Fraud at RFE/RL,”

“Doomsday of Radio Liberty. From Double Standards to Double Morals?”

“A Sense of Betrayal,”

“Czech Politician Accuses U.S. of Discrimination Against Foreign Journalists,”

“On Air in Legal Vacuum,”

“Czech MP Writes to U.S. Counterparts Over Work Conditions in RFE/RL,”

”New Administration Must Undo RFE/RL Anti-Diplomacy Abroad,”

“BBG, RFE/RL: Bring Public Diplomats Instead of Public Bureaucrats,”

“Don’t Feed Kremlin’s Public Diplomacy With U.S. Public Hypocrisy,”

“Public Disaster Instead of Public Diplomacy,”

“Cases of Karapetian and Pelivan as Morality Check for Obama Administration. Radio Free Europe to Face European Court of Human Rights,”

“Czech MP Questions Pelivan Case,”

“Czech Sovereignty Ends at RFE/RL,”

“At Radio Free Europe/Liberty, Bulk of Discriminated Employees is Muslims. Hillary Clinton Serves on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Board of Directors,”

“Free Europe With Its Own Laws in Colonial Czech Republic?”  

“From Human Rights Show to Human Rights Court,”

“Prague Spring Leads to Strasbourg,”

”News Flashes From Radio Free/Radio Liberty. The Face of America Abroad,”

“Czech senator angry about Croat’s lawsuit”… “

Tara Sonenshine

The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) and International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB) executives who have embarrassed the Obama Administration by their decision to end Voice of America (VOA) radio broadcasts to Tibet will receive an early visit to VOA from the newly sworn-in Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Tara D. Sonenshine.

BBG Watch has learned that the new Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs has accepted an invitation from the BBG to come by the Cohen Building early in her tenure.  Tara Sonenshine plans to attend the Board’s meeting this month at the Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB), but has also welcomed the chance to visit the agency’s headquarters as well as “the vaunted home of VOA,” as one BBG official with former links to the State Department described her planned Voice of America visit in an internal email.

Tara Sonenshine will see the Voice of America shortly before it may lose many of its broadcasting services, including VOA radio to Tibet, major parts of VOA English and Spanish, VOA Cantonese broadcasts and Internet Cantonese news to China, VOA Georgian radio and several other foreign language news operations. VOA would lose 170 professional front line broadcasters and producers in the proposed budget if it is passed by Congress.   VOA faces net cuts totaling $17 million, compared with a reduction of $731,000 for its sister network, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

These cuts to Voice of America operations are being advanced year after year by a small group of BBG and IBB strategic planners and executives. Despite strong bipartisan opposition in Congress to these cuts, they were approved again this year by the majority of part time BBG members with the notable exception of the senior Republican Ambassador Victor H. Ashe. He and Sonenshine are the only attendees of BBG board meetings with any substantive foreign policy and public diplomacy experience. Sonenshine will represent at these meetings Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who is an ex officio BBG member.

Tibetans protesting at BBG's Michael Lynton's LA Sony office against silencing of Voice of America radio broadcasts to Tibet by the Broadcasting Board of Governors.

A group of Tibetans and their supporters protested recently against the latest proposed VOA cuts at the Sony Pictures office of the BBG interim presiding chair Michael Lynton. Thousands of letters in support of VOA Tibetan radio broadcasts have been sent to members of Congress, some of whom want to save not only VOA Tibetan and Cantonese broadcasts but also VOA programs to other nations without free media, including Vietnam and Laos.

BBG and IBB executives who want to end these broadcasts claim that the Voice of America’s mission of representing the United States to the world can be done by the so-called surrogate broadcasters, semi-private entities such as Radio Free Asia (RFA), which are also managed by the BBG. Critics have charged, however, that these executives are also taking resources from the surrogate broadcasters to expand their own International Broadcasting Bureau bureaucracy. Their primary target, however, according to these critics, is the Voice of America, particularly reporting in foreign languages focusing on human rights issues. These BBG and IBB executives want to fire dozens of experienced VOA journalists, media freedom and human rights activists have warned.

Their measure of success, according to one critic, are VOA English lessons with high school bathroom humor that Chinese censors are inclined to ignore rather than providing hard-hitting radio and satellite television news of interest to specific groups such as political dissidents, human rights activists, ethnic and religious minorities and women who are victims of forced abortions. “They can’t survey these groups in an authoritarian nation like China and therefore videos with juvenile humor seem to them more appealing because they bring it an online audience that can be measured for as long as the Chinese censors allow it,” a critic said.

A letter addressed to Congresswoman Kay Granger (R – TX), Chairman of the Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs of the House Committee on Appropriations and to Ranking Member Congresswoman Nita Lowey (D – NY) criticizes the Broadcasting Board of Governors for expanding their bureaucracy at the expense of critical overseas broadcasts and U.S. strategic interests:

The proposed reductions are driven not by a considered strategic world view, but by bureaucratic expedience and a fundamental misunderstanding of the mission of VOA. If the fiscal year 2013 proposal is enacted, the staff level for VOA will be reduced by 13.2% from the current year. In contrast, only 3.3% of the positions from the International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB), which provides administrative support to the BBG, will be cut. If the fiscal year 2013 proposal is enacted the number of full time equivalent (FTE) positions for the IBB will rise from 593.2 in fiscal year 2011 to 678.2. In the same time period VOA will lose 121.2 FTE positions. The general trend of the IBB has been to grow larger while the number of language services they support is being reduced. Broadcasting should be the last thing to be cut. It makes little sense to grow the bureaucracy while cutting that which it is meant to support. The eliminations and reductions in broadcasting to Tibet, China, Laos, and Vietnam alone will cut 28 positions from VOA.

Link to the Letter

Here is the schedule of Tara Sonenshine’s planned visit to the BBG and Voice of America headquarters, as described in an internal email:

The new Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, Tara Sonenshine, has accepted an invitation from the BBG to come by the Cohen Building early in her tenure.  She plans to attend the Board’s meeting this month at OCB, but has also welcomed the chance to visit the agency’s headquarters as well as the vaunted home of VOA.

This she will do next Tuesday, April 10, from 11 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.  The program agreed upon with the State Department will be:

11 a.m. to noon – reception with light refreshments, VOA Briefing Room.

Among the invitees will be the language service heads and senior congressional staff who handle public diplomacy issues.

Noon to 12:30 – Tailored tour taking in historic aspects of the building as well as state-of-the-art studios.  Possible TV interview, to be worked out with VOA; tape would be shared across entities.

12:30 to 1:30 – Informal lunch, pre-ordered individually for those who choose to participate.  Details to follow.

The program will end in time for a brief break before the 2 p.m. Strategy and Budget Committee meeting.

Unlike most top level BBG and IBB executives, Tara Soneshine has extensive public diplomacy experience and is believed to be sensitive to human rights issues. Some who know her believe than she may be more involved in BBG decision making process.

Here is her official State Department bio:

Biography

Tara D. Sonenshine
Under Secretary
Term of Appointment: 04/05/2012 to present
Tara D. Sonenshine was sworn in as Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs on April 5, 2012.

Tara was formerly Executive Vice President of the United States Institute of Peace. Prior to joining the United States Institute of Peace, she was a strategic communications adviser to many international organizations including USIP, the International Crisis Group, Internews, CARE, The American Academy of Diplomacy, and the International Women’s Media Foundation. Ms. Sonenshine served in various capacities at the White House during the Clinton Administration, including Transition Director and Director of Foreign Policy Planning for the National Security Council and Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Communications for the NSC.

Tara has had a distinguished career in communications and government, with high-level experience in broadcast, print, and online media. She has produced news programs for network television and authored numerous articles for national print and online media. She is the recipient of 10 News Emmy Awards and other awards in journalism for broadcast programs on domestic and international issues.

Tara graduated from Tufts University in 1981 Phi Beta Kappa with a B.A. in political science. She has remained active at Tufts on boards and advisory committees including the Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service.

Her broadcast career began at ABC News in New York, working for another Tufts alumnus, David Burke, then vice president of ABC NEWS. Ms. Sonenshine went on to become editorial producer of ABC News’ Nightline, where she worked for more than a decade. She was also an off-air reporter at the Pentagon for ABC’s World News Tonight. A former contributing editor for Newsweek, Sonenshine is the author of numerous articles on foreign affairs published in the New York Times, Washington Post, and other newspapers.

Her hobbies include family time, tennis, Zumba, writing about foreign policy and global women’s issues.

The continued flow of information from people in the know concerning the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) and concurrently the International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB) is cause for grave concern about continued American strategic, public diplomacy and humanitarian interests in various countries in the world especially, countries like Tibet where wanton desecration of its people is the cultural genocidal policy of China as well as China itself, where human rights and freedoms are denied in every part of one’s existence.

For these active efforts on the part of the BBG to decimate the Voice of America (VOA) and its other offshoot broadcasting entities one is reminded of there being something rotten in the state of the BBG. It isn’t just a lack of vital knowledge or even understanding about what the VOA and the BBG’s surrogate broadcasting grantees are all about, it seems more to be a contrived effort to eliminate America’s influence and presence around the world and especially in those countries where it is the sole light in people’s lives.

It is becoming clearer by the day that in spite of the simple fact that the BBG is completely out of touch and worse, has no real interest in knowing what, who, how and why the VOA has operated so successfully for seventy years. Its strange actions would appear to be herded from some other source which has a vested interest in eliminating American influence.

There is considerable evidence provided by the Obama administration that America has many things it should apologize for but rarely mentions those which have provided millions of people with hope , inspiration and a belief in liberty, freedom and justice for all — the bedrock of America’s dreams and accomplishments.

It is of deep concern that Congress has not acted in a more rapid process to stop what the BBG is doing in its tracks, completely, not just for the short term.

Whenever there has been a consolidation of entities such as for instance what the BBG wants to do, place Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) under one umbrella — ostensibly to save money and end duplication, supposedly — it becomes very clear in short order that what was intended is an unwieldy bubble with no direction. Incapable bureaucrats with even less information upon which to make decisions take over and for all intents and purposes the fundamental reason for the whole operation is lost and done away with entirely.

This is the track that the incompetents at the Broadcasting Board of Governors and the International Broadcasting Bureau seem to be on and America will definitely regret the day that these individuals were in a position of authority to exercise such insane judgement in a world where freedom, liberty and human rights are being torn apart.

One only needs look at the horrible attacks on Jews and Christians in many parts of the world and their right to exist being driven off the map of humanity. At no other time in America’s history, except for during the Second World War, has its influence, care, generosity and hope been more necessary than now. So the question remains, and it requires a very solid response. Why is the BBG attempting to tear down what has been operating exceptionally well for over seventy years?

The namby pamby answers from the BBG, such as saving money and eliminating duplication, just don’t answer the question and in no way are even reasonable or sound. While some may believe that the Cold War is over, most know that in a different form it is just heating up in many parts of the world. It is a frightening thought to realize that Christians and Jews are being killed just for the heck of it, without a viable response by radio broadcasts from America.

Now is the time — not later, or sometime in the future, but now — for Congress to act in a direct, concise and patriotic manner to save the agency and the Voice of America from demolition by a group of know nothings, care nothings, who themselves are so self-absorbed they have no idea what is required of America in order to maintain its influence and humanity for millions around the world.

by Quo Vadis 

In November 2011, at a forum sponsored by the Public Diplomacy Council and reported on by Adam Clayton Powell III, participants heard that the newest 2011 VOA audience figures showed an increase of 22 million for the international broadcasting audience in comparison with 2010.  Good news, of course, and fast on the heels of a brand-spanking-new Strategic Plan unveiled just a month prior and authored by the IBB spokesman at the forum, the Director of the Office of Strategic Planning and Performance Measurement of the United States Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG).

In those 2011 VOA audience figures, “the biggest success on the planet” is how the IBB spokesman described U.S. broadcasting in Afghanistan.  Evidently, the data showed three-quarters of the entire country watches or listens to American broadcasts. Additionally, 400,000 Afghans subscribe to BBG text messaging services. According to available research data, less than half of the population in Afghanistan has a TV and only a tiny minuscule has access to the Internet. Therefore, it would not be difficult to deduce that radio, for the time being, is by far the most powerful medium in the country to reach potential listeners.
 
In reaction to the news about the impact and popularity of U.S. broadcasting in Afghanistan, the BBG/IBB in its FY-2013 budget submission decided to cut those evidently powerful VOA radio broadcasts to Afghanistan while proposing to release eight seasoned VOA broadcasters. In so doing is the Agency, as some wonder, transferring the functions away from VOA’s federal employees to the RFE/RL surrogate grantee, thereby opening up the back door to de-federalization?   

That non-sequitur in deciding to cut VOA Afghan broadcasts in spite of their importance and popularity is rivaled by the announcement in the FY-2013 budget that VOA will cut most of its English-language broadcasts to the world including China and the Middle East. This decision ignores the fact that according to some, English is or should be the official language of the United States, remains the language of diplomacy, culture, and commerce in the world as well as being the second language of choice for millions of people around the globe from Albania to Zambia. One can only wonder if the BBC, plus Radio Canada International and Radio Australia, perhaps inspired by the daring VOA example, will soon cut its English-language broadcasts to the world as well. 

At the Public Diplomacy forum, there came a “medium is the message” a la Marshall McLuhan moment when the IBB spokesman stated: “Impact cannot be reduced to audience, but you cannot have impact without audience,” adding that broadcasting needs to look at specific audiences – not just traditional elites, but young people and women.” Actually, the Voice of America has been doing that for many years, informing audiences with the latest news and commentary and tailoring its back-half features to the diverse interests of its listeners with programming aimed at a cross-section of the listening audience: farmers, students, teachers, engineers, politicians, elites, business people, young/old, men/women, rich and poor. In its music programs, the VOA of the not-too-distant past  broadcast the full spectrum of American music: opera and classical music, country, Broadway, folk, pop, rock, hip-hop, blues, jazz and never concentrated solely on rock and pop music, as in Radio Sawa to the Middle East, as if that were the only musical genre produced in America.

Beyond audience growth, another goal of the Strategic Plan, said its author, is for VOA and other U.S. broadcasters to embrace user content and use material created by listeners and viewers. According to the IBB spokesman at the forum, the “value added” by U.S. international broadcasting would be checking and verifying the accuracy of material submitted by the audience. Unfortunately, the “check-and-verify” concept was challenged by the recent gaffe of the VOA Russian website which published a completely fictitious interview supposedly with a leader of the anti-Putin dissident movement in Moscow, Alexei Navalny, who announced to the world that the VOA interview was totally bogus and conducted via cyberspace with an impostor. “Value added” is a slippery slope, indeed.

One questioner at the PD forum said he could not find the phrase “public diplomacy” anywhere in the Strategic Plan.  “Correct,” said the Strategic Plan author, the reason being:  “Objective journalists by and large, don’t subscribe to the idea that they are changing people’s attitudes,” continuing that “attitudinal and behavioral change is the hope, but not a direct goal.”  And the explanation finished with:  “we don’t do the advocacy piece. Good things will come from good journalism.”  

Crystal-clear.  Forget the WHAM (Winning Hearts and Minds) factor.

That comment is in sharp contrast to the words of the distinguished public diplomacy expert, Walter Roberts, whom many credit with being one of the founding fathers of VOA. At the recent 70th birthday celebration of VOA, Walter Roberts stated: As the information revolution proceeds, diplomacy will become much more public diplomacy and public diplomacy cannot exist without international broadcasting. When I predict that in 30 years the Voice of America will exist, I also predict that Deustche Welle will also exist, that the BBC will exist because international broadcasting is a vital part of public diplomacy.”

Although public diplomacy was indeed omitted in the latest Strategic Plan, former BBG Chairman, Walter Isaacson, placed international broadcasting at the center of our national security. In his remarks when the Strategic Plan was unveiled, Mr. Isaacson said: “Our media outlets – VOA, RFE/Radio Liberty, Alhurra TV and Radio Sawa, RFA, and Radio/TV Marti – are a vital, cost-effective national security asset, whose impact is felt by some 166 million people weekly across the globe where critical U.S. interests are at stake.”

That difference of opinion is reflected in the current state of affairs at the BBG/IBB where there is an obvious disconnect about the true mission of international broadcasting between upper management and some middle-managers together with most of the rank-and-file.  Over the past few years, that disconnect is also obvious with the U.S. Congress which has consistently overruled the plans of the BBG/IBB in the national interest and the interests of national security.

The VOA ensemble trudges on and plays its heart out in spite of who happens to be the leader or conductor at any given time. Many directors embraced their duties conducting the VOA ensemble with enthusiasm, earning respect and admiration; others were indifferent or perceived the employees as a bothersome and unruly bunch, preferring to keep interaction to a minimum. Regardless of whether the Director was a gem or a lemon or whether upper management knew the score or didn’t, the broadcasting band continued to play on and does so now until such time as its voice will be silenced.

Not much different from the musicians in this video playing Dance of the Comedians from Smetana’s “The Bartered Bride” with the irrepressible rascal, Victor Borge, at the podium.

Link to Video

The following is a guest commentary which takes a look at how the Chinese authorities and a U.S. federal government agency adopted a similar approach to media use of the Cantonese language.

IF IT WALKS LIKE A DUCK AND QUACKS LIKE A DUCK, IT’S NOT A CHICKEN

News Commentary by Quo Vadis

In a statement issued  February 13, 2012 announcing its budget request for 2013,  the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) trumpeted sweeping cuts of English and language broadcasts and a reduction of almost 200 jobs at its flagship station, the Voice of America, this year celebrating its 70th, and as many believe, its final anniversary.  
 
Among the VOA broadcasts facing obliteration:  the Cantonese Service which has been on the air since February of 1939 when the United States began  its link with the people in China who speak Cantonese by providing them with news broadcasts and then programs to promote freedom and democracy. Its role was reaffirmed by Public Law 94-350 which established the VOA Charter. 
 
In its announcement, the BBG, as justification for its decision, stated: “as Mandarin and Cantonese are the same written language, VOA will reach Cantonese listeners on its website.”  There is a slight problem with this assertion.  

Without going into the language of linguists who use exotic-for-the-general-public words like logographic, semanto-phonetic and morphophonemic, let’s break it down in more understandable terms:  

Written Chinese uses Classical and Standard characters. Both Cantonese and Mandarin speakers can read Classical Chinese.   Standard Chinese is based on the Mandarin dialect with vocabulary drawn from Mandarin speech. Therefore, the BBG is partly correct in saying that Mandarin and Cantonese speakers can both READ the classical WRITTEN Chinese language.  However, (and it’s quite a significant “however”), written and spoken Cantonese is almost completely different from written and spoken Mandarin because Cantonese is essentially a different language in its spoken form. 
 
So, in short, according to linguists, with some variations, this is basically how it goes:
​     
Mandarin speakers can read Standard Written Chinese (Mandarin) but not Written Cantonese.

Mandarin speakers understand Spoken Mandarin but generally don’t understand Spoken Cantonese although there are some Mandarin speakers who can.

Cantonese speakers can read Written Chinese (Mandarin) and their own Written Cantonese.

Some Cantonese speakers can understand Spoken Mandarin but all understand Spoken Cantonese. 

Boiled down to more understandable terms:

A Cantonese speaker and a Mandarin speaker can look at the exact same written text and understand what it says.  But ask them to read it out loud, and it’s the proverbial duck talking to the chicken.
 
That’s a bit different from the BBG statement which calls for a faulty and suspect conclusion to justify an action that they have taken with little or no research as to its validity and complexity.
 
Essentially, the BBG decision means that the approximately 60+ million speakers of Cantonese in mainland China which includes the large provinces of Guangdong and Guangxi  as well as the predominantly Cantonese-speaking population (7 million) of Hong Kong plus another half-million in Macau will be deprived of news and information from the United States of America. 
 
Not only information from America.  The central communist government in Beijing decided that as of March 1st of 2012, domestic radio and TV Cantonese broadcasts to the mainly Cantonese-speaking populous province of Guangdong will disappear (broadcasters will have to apply for permission to broadcast).  
 
This latest move against media use of Cantonese comes after the government proposed switching prime-time programming on Guangdong TV’s main channels from Cantonese to Mandarin in 2010. Implementation was postponed when the decision triggered mass demonstrations by Cantonese speakers, demonstrations so intense that the VOA covered them in its English-language broadcasts. 

Keeping VOA Cantonese broadcasts alive could and should be a strategic decision by the BBG in order to maintain and moreover, to increase listenership among a population now deprived of media in its own language.  
 
In the olden days of VOA, issues such as these were discussed and debated prior to implementation.  Not so now. Unfortunately, trying to point these facts out to the members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors and their executive staff is akin to speaking Mandarin to a Cantonese and vice versa:  quack-quack to cluck-cluck: like a duck talking to a chicken.
 

See original here:
Broadcasting Board of Governors member lashes out against domestic critics, calling them ‘cowards’

Go here to read the rest:
Media freedom activist Ted Lipien warns against diminished public stake in U.S. international broadcasting

Excerpt from:
‘Old white guys’ meet ‘cute young intern’ and First Amendment at the Broadcasting Board of Governors

If the BBG plan to de-federalize the Voice of America (VOA) is adopted, Americans will have even less to say how their money is spend on spreading America’s message abroad by a proposed new corporate entity. Public scrutiny of U.S. international broadcasting will be drastically diminished.

Removing the BBG and VOA from the public sphere into a corporate commercial sphere is likely to make them even less transparent and less accountable than they are now. It will also make them less able to represent America and American citizens and less able to offer a powerful message of support for free press and democratic values.

As our contribution to what we hope will be an unhampered public discussion, we will include in this section significant articles on the public diplomacy role of international broadcasting. The first link is to an article published last year by former Voice of America director Robert Reilly. His article is available online, link, on the MercatorNet website, which stands for: reframing ethical and policy debates in terms of human dignity, not dollars and cents or political calculation.

Message to US State Dept: evil is evil is evil

Here are some highlights from Robert Reilly’s article:

The State Department should not have been expected to do both diplomacy and public diplomacy, as they sometimes conflict. Public diplomacy attempts to reach the peoples of other nations directly over the heads of their governments. This can make the State Department’s job more difficult, as its responsibility is to work with the heads of those same governments and maintain good relations with them. The two missions should not reside in the same institution. Public diplomacy has suffered as a result. In short, since the dismantling of USIA, there has been no central US government institution within which policy, personnel, and budget could be deployed coherently to implement a multifaceted strategy to win the war of ideas over an extended period of time.

On its part, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) inherited all non-defense government broadcasting, including the Voice of America. The BBG became a stand-alone agency run by part-time board members, most of whom have had no experience in foreign policy or public diplomacy. The eight Board members exercise executive power, to the extent that eight CEOs can, and are not directly accountable to anyone.

Since the professional backgrounds of the governors have been mainly in American mass media, they have sought to replicate that media in government broadcasting by refashioning much of it with American pop culture – Radio Sawa being the primary example. Over the past decade, the BBG has seen fit to eliminate VOA’s services to Brazil in Portuguese, to Russia, to India in Hindi, to the Arabic world, and now to China in both Mandarin and Cantonese. [The plan to end VOA Chinese broadcasts was stopped due to a bipartisan Congressional intervention.] There seems to be a perverse logic at work here, in which it has abandoned attempts to reach the most important audiences in terms of our national strategic interests about who we are, what we are doing, and why.

In the Arab world, the VOA 12-hour, content-rich Arabic service was replaced with a 24-hour pop music station featuring the likes of Britney Spears, Jay Lo, and Eminem. The intellectual premise of this effort, as explained to me by the chairman of the board when I served as the director of VOA, was that “MTV brought down the Berlin Wall.” Radio Sawa has been proclaimed a success in attracting large youth audiences. However, as the dean of journalism in Jordan informed me, “Radio Sawa is fun, but it is irrelevant.” In a war of ideas, performing a lobotomy on your enemy might be a good move. It is almost unheard of to perform a lobotomy on yourself, and then to declare it a success. How would you like to have a superpower adolescent in your neighborhood?

Robert Reilly has worked in foreign policy, the military, and the arts. His most recent book is The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist Crisis. This paper was delivered at a seminar on “Fighting the Ideological War: Strategies for Defeating Al Qaeda”, organised by the Westminister Institute on May 25. Robert R. Reilly serves on the Advisory Board of the Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting.

As these BBG bureaucrats undermine critical programs, weaken U.S. public diplomacy media outreach abroad and eliminate American jobs, they collect large salaries and pay themselves hefty bonuses. BBG official claim that countries like Croatia, a NATO member, do not need U.S. information programs provided by VOA, but they have also tried to cut or reduce such programs to countries ruled by authoritarian regimes, including Russia and China.

BBG Watch wants to thank one of our supporters who provided us with information how American taxpayers can easily check on the salaries and bonuses of BBG officials.

Link to salaries of federal employees, including BBG officials.

“If you go to the website datauniverse.com, then to Federal Employees in the Public Payroll section, then to the Broadcasting Board of Governors, you can see the salary of every employee and, more importantly, if they received bonuses. Nearly every manager on the 3rd floor (that is where most BBG executive offices are located in Washington, D.C.) received a large cash award for FY2010. Seriously, some of these guys make $170,000 a year and then take a 10-thousand dollar bonus! It is shameful.”

BBG executives close down Voice of America broadcasting services, pay themselves hefty bonuses

The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) executives, who have closed down the Voice of America (VOA) Croatian radio, TV, and Internet broadcasting service the day before Thanksgiving, have paid themselves tens of thousands of dollars in bonuses over the last two years and are expected to receive more such payouts this year. The BBG has also asked OPM for approval to hire a public relations guru at a salary of about $150,000. The BBG already has a well-staffed public and Congressional relations department.

BBG Watch has also learned that one of the main architects of the closures of foreign language broadcasting services at VOA is to receive soon a $10,000 pay raise. He is a member of the team of executives responsible for an unprecedented bipartisan rebuke to the BBG in the U.S. Congress. Congressional committees blocked the plan to terminate VOA radio and TV broadcasts to China and charged that the BBG lacks good judgement and transparency.

But the Voice of America’s Croatian Service, which did not receive similar attention in Congress, signed for the last time Wednesday, after 19 years of broadcast history that began during the bloody breakup of the former Yugoslavia. Rather than to keep broadcasting to Croatia even at a reduced level to serve U.S. public diplomacy needs, BBG officials closed down the service. VOA Director David Ensor is new to his job and may not yet fully realize that this latest move is part of a strategy of undermining Voice of America’s special role as a news and public diplomacy channel for the United States. One of the BBG’s earliest moves after the 9/11 terror attacks was to eliminate all Voice of America programs in Arabic.

While VOA has each year fewer and fewer broadcasts to be managed, not a single highly-paid VOA or BBG manager has been asked to leave or to take a pay cut. Instead, their numbers keep growing with the money for their salaries and bonuses generated by cutting essential programs and eliminating broadcasting positions within the organization.

A VOA press release states that “VOA Croatian’s five-minute TV NewsFlash was broadcast daily on eight affiliate stations and focused on American news of relevance to Croatian audiences, including business, science, American culture, and politics. The popular Breakfast Show, a roundup of US, Croatian and world news, aired on radio for 19 years, without a single day of interruption. An evening radio show aired on shortwave and ten affiliate FM stations in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.”

Executives who ordered the termination of VOA radio and TV broadcasts to China and Croatia have been rated in government-wide employee surveys among the worst managers in the federal workforce. They chose Valentine’s Day to inform VOA Chinese language service journalists that 45 of them will lose their jobs and picked the day before Thanksgiving to close down the Croatian service. They are well known for their holiday surprises for Voice of America employees

Called “VOA Silencers” for trying to fire 45 VOA journalists specializing in human rights reporting at the time of intensified Chinese government crackdown of freedom of expression, BBG executives are likely to collect yet another round of bonuses on top of their large salaries. One of the chief policy planners, who is paid over $150,000 a year, will be getting a $10,000 on top of $2,500 bonus received in FY2010. However, due partly to the fiasco in Congress over the China proposal, he is rumored to be asked to essentially do nothing but to collect his salary. Another official received $160,000 in salary and a $7,500 bonus in FY2010. A marketing specialist made over $165,000 and received an $7,500 bonus. Their boss, whose salary in FY2010 was $170,000, received a $10,000 bonus in addition to all the usual generous benefits that come with federal employment, including subsidized health insurance, vacation, and retirement.

The same officials are denying basic employment benefits to full time contract employees who now constitute 45 percent of VOA workforce. Because some of these executives switch jobs between the BBG, which is a federal agency, and private broadcasting 501(c)3 entities managed by the BBG, some collect hundreds of thousands of dollars each year in combined salary and retirement benefits, all paid for by U.S. taxpayers.

At the time when the U.S. economy is struggling, millions of Americans are unemployed, and millions more could only wish to be making even a small portion of what the Broadcasting Board of Governors executives are making, these officials have been eliminating American jobs and giving money to Internet companies that outsource their work overseas. They are also signing contracts with foreign advertising agencies in countries like Russia to help drive visitors to their websites while firing broadcast journalists and engineers employees by the BBG in the United States. They are planning to shut down the BBG Transmitting Station in Greenville, North Carolina, and to put dozens of Americans out of work at this and at other broadcasting facilities and units.

BBG officials have also signed a contract with the giant consulting firm Deloitte, potentially worth $1.3 million. The contract is designed to give a blessing for their strategic plan, which they had already gotten BBG members to approve. It includes $150,000 in travel expenses. They also want to privatize the Voice of America and Radio and TV Marti. This action would put them in charge of yet another bureaucracy which would operate with fewer government restrictions and less oversight from Congress. Radio and TV Marti broadcast news to Cuba. The Cuban regime would welcome their privatization as a sign of the Obama Administration’s diminished support for democracy in Cuba.

BBG executives’ more immediate plan is to eliminate some of the journalistic and administrative independence that made U.S. government-funded stations like Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty successful in delivering highly-targeted news and defending human rights abroad. The merger plan would create a large corporate bureaucracy that would manage the BBG’s surrogate broadcasters: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, Alhurra TV, and Radio Sawa. A top-ranking BBG official referred to some of the architects of RFE/RL’s surrogate radio operations as “old white guys” and wished for their quick departure.

Some of the members serving on the bipartisan Board, however, have begun to question the advice they are getting from the BBG executive staff. A senior Republican member, Ambassador Victor Ashe, expressed his opposition to extravagant spending by BBG bureaucrats while critical broadcasting operations are being eliminated or reduced and employees are denied basic benefits. During open BBG meetings, he received some support from a Democratic member Michael Meehan. Ashe announced that he plans to visit the Greenville transmitting station despite the objections of BBG officials who want to close it down.

BBG Chairman and former CNN executive Walter Isaacson, who was busy writing a biography of Steve Jobs, has allowed BBG bureaucrats to run the show without much supervision from the part-time Board. They developed a strategic plan to reflect Isaacson’s vision of privatizing the BBG and turning it into a CNN-like news agency. Critics say that the centralization of news gathering proposed under this plan would destroy the independence and the human rights focus of surrogate broadcasters like RFE/RL and Radio Free Asia (RFA).

Critics also say that privatization of the Voice of America and Radio and TV Marti would destroy their effectiveness as authoritative voices of the American government and the American people. American taxpayers would still have to pay for this new NPR-like structure, since the BBG staff wants to ask Congress to repeal the Smith-Mundt Act’s restrictions on the domestic distribution of BBG programs while still relying entirely for funding on Congressional appropriations. This is likely to cost U.S. taxpayers even more money than the current arrangement. Critics say that the BBG plan will weaken overseas broadcasts in support of democracy and human rights which are considered one of the essential non-military contributions to the war on terror and to countering anti-American propaganda.

###

VOA/BBG Press Release:

VOA Ends Croatian Broadcasts

Washington, D.C., November 23, 2011 — Voice of America’s Croatian Service signs off for the last time Wednesday, after 19 years of broadcast history that began during the bloody breakup of the former Yugoslavia, and ends with Croatia’s emergence as a democratic member of the European community.

VOA Director David Ensor called the service “a model of journalistic integrity that provided the people of Croatia with fair and impartial news during the dark days of civil war in the Balkans.” Ensor commended the service, which he said, “served as a vital source of independent reporting and insight into American policy.”

Voice of America established its Croatian Language Service on February 20, 1992, a time when the most brutal war since World War II was raging in the Balkans. Spun off from the former Yugoslav Service which had been broadcasting to the area since 1943, VOA Croatian broadcasts began on radio, but were quickly expanded into television. The service was one of VOA’s first to establish an online presence.

VOA Croatian’s five-minute TV NewsFlash was broadcast daily on eight affiliate stations and focused on American news of relevance to Croatian audiences, including business, science, American culture, and politics. The popular Breakfast Show, a roundup of US, Croatian and world news, aired on radio for 19 years, without a single day of interruption. An evening radio show aired on shortwave and ten affiliate FM stations in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

In addition to news coverage, VOA Croatian served as a source of entertainment and cultural programming for more than a decade. Nearly 700 episodes of Saturday’s American Cultural Magazine were aired, with stories on leading entertainers, from blues guitar legend B.B. King, to Los Lobos, the Grammy-winning Los Angeles band that performed in Zagreb in 2010.

VOA Croatian Service Chief Zorz Crmaric called going off the air a “bittersweet moment” that comes as the country begins a new chapter in European integration. He noted Croatia is now a NATO member and is scheduled to join the European Union in 2013.

Follow this link to read the original article:
BBG executives close down Voice of America broadcasting services, pay themselves hefty bonuses

“If VOA constitutes communications essential to national security, privatization may not be feasible,” – Deloitte

“If VOA constitutes communications essential to national security, privatization may not be feasible,” is a conclusion of a consolidation study done by Deloitte, but the consulting firm recommends a quick action on the BBG plan to merge grantee broadcasters. Free Media Online has obtained a copy of the Grantee Consolidation Assessment done for the Broadcasting Board of Governors by Deloitte. It was announced at today’s BBG open meeting that the report will be posted on the BBG Strategy website. The report makes references to “language duplication” between VOA and the Grantees, which implies that there are no differences in mission between VOA and the Grantees. If VOA and the Grantees have different missions, then “language duplication” is a non-issue. If they have the same mission — which evidently they do not — then the logical step would be to combine VOA and the Grantees. Deloitte, however, did discover that VOA broadcasts may have a national security and foreign policy mission and is advocating a further study of the BBG’s de-Federalization proposal.

Here are some of the main elements of the report:

Key Findings:

Today RFE/RL, RFA and MBN are three separate private 501(c)(3) organizations with combined resources of approximately $240 million and approximately 2,000 full time employees and contractors. All have a common mission to act as a surrogate media outlet in countries that do not have an open media environment; additionally, unlike RFE/RL and RFA, MBN is charged with providing context about America, its people, and policies.

Aside from Arabic services to Iraq, there is no overlap in language services among the Grantees, or in bureau locations. With just a merger of the Grantees, there is no potential to eliminate duplication of language services beyond that already planned. A combined entity framework can set the foundation for achieving substantial synergies with respect to the large overlap with VOA language services, which is unanimously supported by all Grantee Presidents.

There are several potential benefits of a merger of the three grantee corporations:

- It would serve as a first step in the execution of the Board’s Strategic Plan that calls for consolidating and streamlining management and administrative infrastructure. A merger would create a single grantee management team which would facilitate
coordination with the BBG in pursuit of its strategic objectives.

- It creates more financial transparency and demonstrates to stakeholders that BBG leadership is committed to allocating resources as efficiently as possible and eliminating waste – potentially garnering support and trust.

- It creates an enforceable structure for more formalized content sharing, advancing the Board’s strategy to harness original reporting from across the language services to create a global news service with rich programming.

- It creates resource savings over time with the elimination of duplicative administrative and technical infrastructures and pooled purchasing power (e.g., for equipment, services, and insurance). This is a key benefit in our current economic environment.

- Positive reaction from Congress if new services, technologies and broadcast medium can be achieved without an increase to the top line.

- Annual run rate savings of $9M, or about 10% can be achieved on approximately $90M of addressable spend which is approximately 38% of the aggregate Grantee budget.

Savings could expand to nearly $14M annually with aggressive facilities consolidation.

Risks of integrating the Grantee corporations include:

- Possible negative reaction from Congress if a merger of the Grantees impedes the flow of content to audiences.

- Uncertain result of merging a partially unionized workforce with non-unionized staff.

- A potentially broader impact of digital and physical security threats in a merged environment if not mitigated.

- Potential disruption to current foreign business licenses and relationships in host countries.

Over five years, the cumulative net savings from merging the Grantee organizations is estimated to be approximately $30M to $40M. There are cumulative savings of $35M to $50M available with one-time costs of $8M to $12M. The savings result from a small headcount reduction of approximately 45-50 resources, plus non-headcount savings related to sourcing efficiencies, and facilities and technology infrastructure consolidation. Longer term, there are opportunities for additional headcount reduction if facilities are more aggressively consolidated.

Conclusions:

Deloitte believes that the merging of the Grantees does have merit, and does make sense strategically and economically. We heard in numerous discussions with leaders across the Grantees that current structure is a product of the evolution of the Agency, is not ideal, and would not be the logical approach if one were starting fresh. We agree with that perspective. The current siloed structure is not an optimal foundation for the new strategic direction envisioned by the Board.

From an operational perspective, we see no roadblocks that cannot be overcome. The vast majority (around 75%) of the resources of the Grantees are devoted to content and programming, so their day to day roles will not change. Merging the administrative processes, policies, and supporting systems will be no more complicated here than in any other merger of a similar scale.

In the current economic environment, continuing to operate three separate organizations with redundant executive management teams, administrative infrastructures, audits, etc. seems to be an
inefficient use of taxpayer resources. The potential annual savings of $9M to $14M could be redeployed toward journalistic initiatives that advance the Board strategic vision.

As with any merger there are risks associated with the potential decline in employee morale. These can be mitigated by swift decision-making and a strong change management program.

Delaying a decision about the path forward will create uncertainty which can dampen employee morale. In addition, delays will stall the advancement of the Board’s strategic plan and cause the organization to miss out on significant potential savings.

Recommendations and Next Steps:

We recommend that the Board approve the merger of the Grantees, and proceed with the design of the new organization and the implementation planning. Based on a typical merger timeframe of about 6 months from a decision, we believe that the Board should target a “Day 1” in July 2012.

To pursue the larger savings available by reducing duplication of language services, as noted earlier and broadly supported by Grantee leadership, we recommend commencing a study on the feasibility, benefits and costs of VOA/OCB de-federalization, reportable at the Board’s March 2012 meeting to explore 3 items:

1. The “quick hit” opportunities available from partially integrating some VOA/OCB operations into the Grantee structure without de-federalization. The objective of this study would be to identify initiatives that could be implemented in parallel with the Day
1 of the Grantee merger in July 2012.

2. The next tranche of opportunities that would become feasible in FY13 without de-federalization.

3. The feasibility of VOA/OCB de-federalization, including benefits, risks, and financial implications.

Key Principles:

There were several key principles that were consistently articulated throughout the visioning discussions with the Grantees. These are things that all believed should be the ‘guard rails’ of any potential integration.

There should be no change in the journalistic mission of the organizations – the current markets and audiences should continue to be served with the content appropriate for them.

The existing market-facing brands should remain intact as they are critical to success. The relationship between the brands and the grantee entity is different across the three organizations. For MBN, the brands (Alhurra, Radio Sawa, Afia Darfur) are the externally known identities, while for Radio Free Asia the brand and the organization are one in the same across its market. RFE/RL has individual brands by service that will be critical to maintain.

The new organization should maintain an entrepreneurial spirit and ability to remain nimble; avoiding bureaucracy.

Risks:

There are five primary potential risks that were identified from discussions with the Grantees.

Congressional reaction:

There is uncertainty as to reaction from Congress. The proposed merger has positive actions in doing more with less, but has the potential to disrupt content if not managed carefully.

Cultural differences:

The three organizations have cultural differences. MBN is a primarily a television focused entity and produces content in a single language , Arabic. RFE/RL and RFA are primarily radio entities (though expanding into other media) and produce content in many languages. Because RFA is much smaller in employee count and budget, it sees itself as a more tightly knit community than the others. It also operates with the least sophisticated resources of the three (e.g. production facilities, technical resources). Bringing together the cultures of these three organizations will require a focused change management effort. Mergers bring uncertainty and change, so there is a possibility that employee morale could suffer resulting in an increased risk of employee turnover. Decision-making delays can exacerbate this situation; employees who are uncertain of the path forward and their role (or lack thereof) in the new organization may be more likely to seek other opportunities.

Unions:

A significant portion of RFA’s workforce is unionized, while RFE/RL has 8 unionized employees and MBN has no unions. A deliberate plan is required to ensure that all parties’ interests are represented in the planning.

Security:

Because of the nature of their work, each organization comes under threat (both physical and digital). Today, when one organization is attacked, the others are unaffected. If the organizations are combined, a threat could affect the scope of the entire operation. For example, if systems are combined and there is a digital attack inspired by RFA’s content, programming and employees in the Middle East and Europe could be affected as well. That said, there are mitigation strategies that could be employed to address this risk.

Staff Reductions:

Management Staff Reductions – Grantee consolidation could eliminate an estimated 13-14 high-level management staff positions, including two Presidents, several VPs and other management support roles. These savings could begin to be as soon as the new leadership structure is executed, and fully realized in the first full fiscal year after merging.

Finance/Admin Staff Reductions – Grantee consolidation could eliminate an estimated 14-15 finance/admin staff positions, including finance management, accounting, and procurement personnel. These savings could begin to be as soon as the new finance organization structure is executed, and fully realized in the first full fiscal year after merging.

HR Staff Reductions – Grantee consolidation is not estimated to reduce overall headcount for HR in the near term, however would likely result in a different mix of positions required -eliminating for example two Director Roles, but increasing the staff at various locations should no facility changes be assumed. The consolidation is likely to require job roles and benefits plans to be redefined and broadly, and HR policy will need to be revisited. If facilities consolidation occurs, there may be an opportunity to reduce 1-2 HR positions.

Facilities Staff Reductions – Real estate consolidation could yield approximately 3-5 facilities staff headcount reductions. In the near term for example, savings would result from offices in the Washington, DC metro area being consolidated. These savings could be realized quickly if existing space is subleased and facilities consolidation begins upon execution of the merger. If facilities consolidation is delayed until the nearest term leases expire, savings will begin to be realized in FY14 and fully realized in FY15.

Communications – Grantee consolidation could eliminate 2-3 communications positions. These savings could begin to be as soon as the new communications organization structure is executed, and fully realized in the first full fiscal year after merging.

Technology Staff Reductions – Grantee consolidation could eliminate an estimated 13 technology staff positions . These savings could begin to be realized as soon as the new technology organization structure is executed, and fully realized in the first full fiscal year after merging. The location/facilities strategy will affect the degree of opportunity in this area. On-site technical resources are required in facilities where production takes place and where there are significant groups of users. Because of the 24×7 nature of some of the operations, shifts are also required which increases overall staffing needs. With fewer locations, it may be possible to streamline the technical staff by up to 25 resources.

Costs to Achieve Staff Reductions – Estimated costs to achieve the identified headcount reduction savings is approximately $2.1M to $2.8M in severance costs. The timing of the severance costs will depend on the execution date of the merger and how aggressively the organization chooses to reduce headcount.

Observations on De-federalization of VOA/OCB and on TSI

VOA, OCB, and BBG/IBB make up approximately $500M (about 66%) of the overall spend on US International Broadcasting, or more than double the spend of the Grantee organizations combined. A full view of synergies opportunities across US International Broadcasting cannot be understood until these organizations are reviewed as well.

Throughout the assessment period, several themes emerged from the discussion regarding VOA, OCB and BBG/IBB:

While there are almost no content overlaps among the Grantees, there are significant overlaps with VOA. The Grantees believe that magnitude of the synergies available by addressing this overlap is greater than the benefits to be gained by just integrating the three Grantees.

All senior Grantee leadership indicated that the merger of the Grantees had merit if VOA was included due to the potential savings resulting from elimination of language service duplication.

It is unclear whether de-federalizing VOA is actually feasible or even desirable. Additional work is required to determine the pros and cons, and financial impact. Issues that must be included in the study are:

Potential loss of major backers:

BBG funding is for a Voice of America that could be perceived as a governmental, rather than an NGO function.

National security:

If VOA constitutes communications essential to national security,
privatization may not be feasible.

In the near term, there are opportunities to find efficiencies with VOA, such as co-location to reduce costs. These opportunities are being addressed on an ad hoc basis.

The Grantees have an interest in taking on some of the distribution functions of TSI, especially if TSI is considering outsourcing them to a 3rd party. The Grantees would like to have the opportunity to ‘bid’ on this work before it goes to a 3rd party as they believe they can offer more cost effective solutions. They also would prefer to have great control over the distribution function to ensure their market needs are met.

There is question of whether the TSI backbone transmission infrastructure could be more efficiently operated by a grantee, rather than federal, organization. A reversal of the client/provider relationship between the federal and non-federal organizations could be explored in terms of efficiencies.

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

October 13, 2011
For Immediate Release

Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting Announces Advisory Board

The Committee for International Broadcasting (CUSIB) is proud to announce the formation of its Advisory Board:
 
Harry Wu, Founder of the Laogai Research Foundation;
Tala Dowlatshahi, Senior Adviser and U.S. Representative of Reporters Without Borders;
Appo Jabarian, Executive Publisher and Senior Editor of USA Armenian Life Magazine;
Jing Zhang, President of Women’s Rights in China;
Reggie Littlejohn, Founder and President of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers;
Joe Brown, President of the Pasadena Chapter NAACP;
Herbert W. Stupp, Baruch College, former NYC Commissioner;
Robert A. Senser, Editor/Publisher of Human Rights for Workers website;
Manny Papir, Media Consultant and Human Rights Campaigner;
Timothy Shamble, President of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Local 1812;
Gary Marco, retired employee of the Voice of America and former President of Local 1418, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees;
Marie Ciliberti, former Voice of America writer, producer and broadcaster for programs directed to the former Soviet Union.
 
“We are honored to welcome such a diverse group of men and women who bring experience from journalism and human rights advocacy to our Advisory Board as we analyze the policies and plans of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), the Federal agency in charge of U.S. international broadcasting. The CUSIB has been formed in response to the belief that the BBG lacks transparency especially after such a serious rebuke by the U.S. Congress,” stated Ann Noonan, Executive Director of CUSIB.  “Last month we were encouraged to learn that the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations rejected the Broadcasting Board of Governor’s plan to pull the plug on Voice of America’s uncensored radio and television broadcasts to China and rely instead solely on the vulnerable internet. With this Advisory Board in place, we hope to assist the BBG’s transparency goals and avoid future mistakes.”

CUSIB co-founder Ted Lipien stated: “The CUSIB reviews U.S. international broadcasting operations in an effort to develop solutions for restoring U.S. broadcasting’s emphasis on freedom of the press and on human rights. Some of our most recent concerns have included censorship of the Voice of America’s news broadcasts to Ethiopia as well as reporting from North Korea that covered local conditions, notably the ongoing food shortage, only in passing, while giving extensive airing to the North Korean regime’s propaganda.  We hope our Advisory Board will be welcome in the BBG’s discussions.” 

U.S. international broadcasting includes the Voice of America, which offers international news as well as explaining U.S. policies and providing information on American culture, society and politics, and the surrogate broadcasters — Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks (Alhurra TV and Radio Sawa), Radio Free Asia, and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting (Radio and TV Martí) — which focus more closely on internal news in countries without free media. CUSIB believes both VOA and the surrogate broadcasters serve very important functions and deserve support of all Americans.

The Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting (CUSIB) is a nonpartisan, nongovernmental organization working to strengthen free flow of uncensored news from the United States to countries with restricted and developing media environments. For further information, please contact:

Ann Noonan, co-founder and Executive Director
Tel. 646-251-6069

Ted Lipien, co-founder
Tel. 415-793-1642

Email: contact@cusib.org

Link:
Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting Announces Advisory Board — CUSIB Press Release

Here is the original post:
‘New battle for hearts and minds’ in former Soviet space?

More:
Declinism redux?

In 2010 Congressman Smith successfully led an effort to nominate Liu Xiaobo for the Nobel Peace Prize. When the Chinese government refused to allow Liu to attend the ceremony, Smith and then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi represented the U.S. at the presentation ceremony.

Smith chaired a comprehensive November 2009 hearing called “Thirty Years of the One-Child Policy” which detailed human rights violations including forced sterilizations, forced abortions and “gendercide” bias against girls resulting in alarming gender imbalance seen in many areas of China today.

Computers in Smith’s office and that of another congressman active in human rights in China were hacked in 2006 and 2007, with strong indications that the hackers were based in China (AP article of incident). The Broadcasting Board of Governors accepted its executive staff’s recommendation that all VOA news in Chinese be delivered by Internet only despite the fact that China blocks Western news websites in Chinese.

The Congressional-Executive Commission on the People’s Republic of China was created by Congress in October 2000 with the legislative mandate to monitor human rights and the development of the rule of law in China, and to submit an annual report to the President and the Congress (2010 report). The Commission consists of nine Senators, nine Members of the House, and five senior Administration officials appointed by the President. The commission maintains a list of known Chinese political and religious prisoners.

“Strong U.S. leadership is required to advance human rights in China, not only for the sake of those suffering from violent human rights abuses, but for our own sake as well,” said Smith, who was critical of President Obama’s warm welcome of Chinese President Hu Jintao earlier this year in Washington. “The interests of the U.S. depend on a future China that protects its citizens’ rights and freedoms. We have seen a bold emergence of China into African affairs, particularly in Sudan. The U.S. should speak out when necessary.”

Link to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs news on Congressman Smith’s nomination.

The latest charges of censorship at the Voice of America and the Broadcasting Board of Governors first surfaced in investigative reports by exiled Ethiopian journalist Abebe Gellaw who was recently a Knight Journalism Fellow at Stanford University and a visiting scholar at the Hoover Institution in California. He publishes the Ethiopian American news website Addis Voice. His website and many others are banned in Ethiopia.

Addis Voice reported that BBG and VOA officials have tried to silence and punish Voice of America journalist David Arnold, the chief of the Horn to Africa Service, for disclosing the Ethiopian regime’s demands for censoring VOA broadcasts made in Addis Ababa during a recent meeting with visiting BBG members. Since his exile from Ethiopia, Mr. Gellaw’s articles and interviews have been published in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the Guardian, and the Far East Review.

In June 2011, three BBG members appointed by President Obama went to Ethiopia where they met with officials of the Ethiopian regime to discuss their complaints of anti-regime bias in VOA news programs. According to reports in Ethiopian American media, BBG members were presented a list of Ethiopian dissidents, political exiles and foreign critics whom the regime wants to ban from Voice of America radio broadcasts, apparently as a condition for lifting the local jamming of these programs. The names were included in a document describing the objections of the Ethiopian regime to VOA news reports. Addis Voice obtained the document and made it available online.

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and other media freedom organizations have accused the Ethiopian regimeof Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, in power since 1991, of imprisoning journalists, jamming Voice of America and other foreign broadcasts, and blocking many foreign and independent news websites.

Ethiopian American media reported that BBG officials, who apparently wanted to keep the content of their negotiations in Addis Ababa secret, suspended the chief of the Voice of America Horn of Africa Service David Arnold from his position after he had informed his VOA colleagues about the Ethiopian regime’s demands. BBG officials accused Mr. Arnold, a highly-regarded journalist with decades of reporting experience, of engaging in misinformation but later allowed him to return to work after Ethiopian American media reports brought about a storm of criticism and raised charges of censorship. According to reports in the Ethiopian American media, it is not clear, however, whether he will keep his old job and be safe from further harassment by BBG members and their executive staff.

Phone calls, faxes and emails protesting censorship of the Voice of America news, the dismissal of VOA journalist David Arnold, and the BBG’s plan to end VOA radio and TV broadcasts to China and to fire journalists specializing in human rights reporting can be directed to the following institutions:

U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs, Illeana Ros-Lehtinen, Chairman; Howard L. Berman, Ranking Member

U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, John F. Kerry, Chairman; Richard G. Lugar, Ranking Member

Committee to Protect Journalistsinfo@cpj.org

Reporters Without Bordersclc@rsf.org

Index on Censorshipenquiries@indexoncensorship.org

Mr. Arnold was part of a delegation headed by three Broadcasting Board of Governors members — Susan McCue, Dana Perino, and Michael P. Meehan.

A VOA report on the visit, which included information disclosed by Mr. Arnold, was removed from the VOA website, reportedly soon after Ethiopian officials complained about it to the BBG staff. Subsequently, VOA executives also banned news coverage from a meeting of Ethiopian political exiles which was held in Washington, D.C. area, suggesting that the BBG mission to Ethiopia continues to have an impact on the bureaucrats who are eager to please BBG members and their executive staff.

Abebe Gellaw reported that the controversy over censorship at the Voice of America took a bizarre twist last week when the Director of Africa Division forbade staffers from taking notes at a meeting she held with employees of the Horn of Africa Service. The manager in charge of VOA programs to Africa told staff to do more people-oriented programming and cut down on the number of stories focused on political affairs.

Free Media Online president Ted Lipien

“Most BBG members, nominated because of their political loyalty and private sector experience, do not know how to deal with enemies of press freedom and are all too eager to listen to dictators’ complaints against independent journalists without realizing the negative impact of their actions on victims of political repression,” Lipien said.

BBG member Michael P. Meehan

Voice of America sources have told Free Media Online that attempts to punish VOA journalists by BBG members and their staff have created an atmosphere of fear and intimidation among the media professionals employed by the U.S. government-funded organizations run by the BBG.

“The BBG’s attempts to discipline Mr. Arnold for doing his job as a journalist is even more outrageous in light of the fact that in 2005 the Ethiopian regime charged five journalists working for the VOA Amharic Service with treason and threatened them with the death penalty,” Lipien said. The charges were later withdrawn after pressure from the U.S. government and human rights NGOs.

“The BBG should be in business of supporting media freedom, not secretly negotiating with suppressors of free press in countries like Ethiopia, Russia, and China, and censoring and punishing its own journalists. The goal of U.S. public diplomacy ought to be reaching out to the victims of political repression abroad, not trying to improve relations with dictatorial regimes. The job of dealing with dictators should be left to professional State Department diplomats, who are hopefully both tough and experienced. The idea that political operatives and private businessmen from the U.S. can somehow persuade dictators to soften their grip on the media had been tried by naive individuals numerous times when the Soviet Union still existed and had always failed while making the life of dissidents and independent journalists more difficult and more dangerous,” Lipien said.

“Sending not one but three BBG members to Ethiopia with a large entourage to negotiate with enemies of press freedom was counterproductive and a tremendous waste of taxpayers’ money,” Lipien added. “It made the enemies of press freedom feel good and took away hope from the victims of human rights abuses and the journalists who try to defend them. If it were otherwise, BBG members and executives would not have resorted to censorship and intimidation against their own journalists.”

Lipien suggested that the BBG represents now a greater danger to journalistic independence at the Voice of America than State Department diplomats ever did when VOA was part of the now-defunct United States Information Agency (USIA). This is highly ironic — according to him — because one of the reasons the U.S. Congress created the BBG was to establish a better firewall between VOA journalists and administration officials. “While I worked as a journalist at VOA, lower-level State Department and USIA officials sometimes tried to influence our reporting but these attempts were relatively rare and we were able to ignore most of them before they escalated into a real fight. The BBG, on the other hand, has a much greater direct power over VOA journalists, as Mr. Arnold has found out, and is far less accountable. State Department diplomats were also more aware that it is illegal to interfere with journalistic independence of Voice of America reporters — something that some of the BBG members, some of their executive staffers, and some VOA managers don’t seem to understand, as strange as it may be,” Free Media Online president said.

Lipien also said that compounding the problem is the incompetence of the entrenched BBG executive staff, which feeds the eagerness of BBG members, derived from their private sector experience, to make deals with dictators to establish local program placement in the hope of increasing audience ratings. This is a failed strategy, which the BBG staff also uses to justify eliminating VOA radio and TV broadcasts to countries like China and Russia when their local program efforts inevitably fail, Lipien observed. He listed as examples of the most spectacular failures of the BBG executive staff giving airtime to Holocaust deniers, ending VOA radio programs to Russia just 12 days before the Russian military attack on the Republic of Georgia, their refusal to resume these programs, planning to end VOA radio and TV broadcasts to China on the anniversary of the establishment of the communist regime in Beijing, and their decision to send BBG members to negotiate with dictators who only stay in power because of their repression of free media.

In a move that is likely to endanger human rights activists, the BBG executive staff has been advocating Internet-only VOA news delivery to China despite Beijing’s effective Internet censorship and its ability to discover identities of individuals trying to access Western news websites. BBG bureaucrats with links to private sector contractors have been making promises of piercing China’s Internet firewall and yet have been unable to protect Voice of America’s own websites from successful attacks by hackers, most likely from China and Russia.

The Ethiopian American organizers of the protest rally against the Broadcasting Board of Governors are warning that the BBG wants to turn the Voice of America into the Voice of China. The rally is scheduled for 9 AM, Monday, July 25, in front of the Voice of America building at 330 Independence Avenue, S.W. in Washington, D.C. just below the Capital Hill. Free Media Online is asking members of Congress to investigate the charges of censorship by BBG members and to protect Voice of America journalist David Arnold and his colleagues from further reprisals.

Speaking at a hearing on religious freedom, democracy and human rights in Asia, Sophie Richardson, Asia Advocacy Director of the Human Rights Watch told the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs that the Human Rights Watch urges the U.S. to “maintain funding not only for Tibetan language programs for RFA and VOA, but also for the Mandarin, Cantonese, and Uighur services.” Ms. Richardson said that these services “are irreplaceable means of transmitting information into and out of all regions of China.”

Speaking at the same hearing of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Hollywood actor Richard Gere, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the International Campaign for Tibet, also called for saving Voice of America broadcasts.

The Committee can also ensure that Tibet programs are properly funded. I know that budgets are tight, but U.S. government Tibet programs are as small as they are effective. For example, because of congressional initiative, the Tibetan language services of Radio Free Asia and the Voice of America broadcast information every day into Tibet. This is almost the only source of independent news available on the Tibetan plateau, and it works. When the Dalai Lama met President Obama in the White House in February 2010, monks in Amdo lit off fireworks to celebrate that the world’s greatest democracy still cared for the plight of Tibet. How did they know the new President would be meeting with their revered spiritual leader? By listening to the Voice of America.

The House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs is chaired by U.S. Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), who in her opening statement at the June 02 hearing was critical of the Obama Administration’s approach to the issue of human rights in China.

Statue of the Goddess of Democracy on the Tiananmen Square, 1989

Here is the text of Ann Noonan’s remarks, in which she described in detail the BBG plan to end Voice of America radio and TV broadcasts to China. The VOA China Branch television news program has had more members of Congress as guests than any other Voice of America broadcast.

Young people throughout the world, like the young people who risked their lives 22 years ago in Tiananmen Square, are risking their lives today for basic human rights, freedom, and the right to participate in governing themselves. They look to the United States for inspiration. Their stories deserved to be shared.

VOA is part of a Congressional mandate which provides news broadcasts that promote freedom and democracy from the United States to the world.

The VOA Charter states: “The long-range interests of the United States are served by communicating directly with the peoples of the world by radio…
1. VOA will serve as a consistently reliable and authoritative source of news…”

In its budget request, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees VOA has proposed to end its radio and television broadcast to China. This is not part of any potential budget cut problems facing Americans, but rather, it’s Voice of America being forced to re-allocate an actually higher budget than last years away from Chinese language services.

Today as we commemorate the 22nd Anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre, a day in history when the world watched students in China who sought freedom be cut down, killed, jailed and exiled, I’d like to ask each of you to contact Members of Congress about plans that will censor Voice of America’s Chinese services as of October 1st.

This campaign against VOA is insidious. It comes during China’s media crackdown on stories against Ai Weiwei and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Liu Xiaobo. It comes during a time when China’s media has blocked news about uprisings in Egypt and Libya. It comes during a media crackdown in China against any stories shared about the blind lawyer Chen Guangcheng, and other prisoners of conscience.

Why should we think that a nation as large and vast as China that already has to deal with an oppressive internet censorship should have the range of radio broadcast reduced or shrunk in depth or coverage?

These changes will stifle the struggles of the young people in China who seek religious freedom and democracy.

And why should we as Americans be the cause of these changes?

Our Members of Congress need to reject the Broadcasting Board of Governors’ proposal to eliminate Voice of America’s Chinese services. We must maintain Voice of America’s broadcasts and continue to transmit our ideals of freedom and democracy to all.

I’d like to ask each of you to keep the message of Pope John Paul II in your hearts as we continue to press for justice: “Do not be afraid.”

In April, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, chaired by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), held a hearing entitled, “Is America’s Overseas Broadcasting Undermining our National Interest and the Fight Against Tyrannical Regimes?” to examine the failures of current U.S. strategic communications policy toward dangerous enemies like Iran and China. After the hearing, Rep. Rohrabacher issued a statementnoting that the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) announced dramatic cuts in the Voice of America Mandarin and Cantonese language services, laying off 45 Chinese journalists and eliminating daily 12 hour Chinese broadcasts, while Xinhua, the official propaganda news arm of the Chinese Communist Party is aggressively expanding and opening offices in the U.S. According to reports, the Chinese have spent approximately $7 billion over the past two years on propaganda efforts.

“If the Chinese Communist Party is to be peacefully defeated, we need to be fully committed to effective public diplomacy,” said Rohrabacher. “The $8 million we’re allegedly saving through the BBG’s cuts will do far more to weaken our efforts in China than they will do to balance our budget.”

The BBG has also decided to retreat from using shortwave radio as means of broadcasting into China. The Communist “China Radio International” on the other hand, has expanded its efforts by tripling its English broadcasting since 2000 to over 280 frequencies.

“I seriously question the wisdom of the BBG’s recent decision to switch from shortwave to an Internet based service that is much more vulnerable to the type of Internet controls and monitoring the Communist Chinese have been perfecting for years,” said Rohrabacher.

David Wu, a Democratic member of Congress from Oregon, is also “utterly opposed” to any reduction in VOA’s radio broadcasts to China. He and Congressman Rohrabacher sent a joint letter to the House Appropriations Committee to secure funding to keep VOA broadcasts to China alive. The letter was co-signed by Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R – MI), Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D – MD), Rep. Chris Smith (R – NJ) and others.

“Now is the time to increase worldwide access to information … This is not the time to pull the plug,” warned former BBG member Blanquita Cullum in a Washington Times editorial published last February. She accused the BBG of seeming “more intent on communicating with rulers than with the people.”

Ted Lipien, President of Free Media Online (FreeMediaOnline.org), a California-based nonprofit which supports media freedom worldwide, said Saturday that the Broadcasting Board of Governors’ decision to end VOA radio and television broadcasts to China places victims of human rights abuses in China in greater danger of being exposed to the Chinese secret police, facing harassment and possible imprisonment. The BBG wants the Voice of America news to be available in Chinese only on the Internet, which is heavily censored in China. “The BBG will force human rights and pro-democracy activists to search for VOA news on the web, thus making it easier for the Chinese cyber police to identify them.

Listening to radio and watching satellite TV in China is safe but trying to find the Voice of America on the Internet is both difficult and can be dangerous for many Chinese; the Broadcasting Board of Governors has shown remarkable indifference to victims of human rights abuses and others who suffer repression,” Lipien said. “The real effect of the BBG’s actions is to preserve unproductive jobs for BBG bureaucrats and their private contractor friends by eliminating positions of 45 VOA Chinese Branch journalists who specialize in human rights reporting.” So far, BBG officials have been ignoring appeals from members of Congress and human rights activists to reverse their decision on VOA Chinese broadcasts.

The Broadcasting Board of Governors had already eliminated Voice of America broadcasts in Arabic and in Russian. The BBG has been consistently rated in government-wide surveys as one of the worst-managed federal agencies. By switching jobs between the BBG and its semi-private broadcasting entities, some of its current and former executives receive close to $300,000 in annual salaries and retirement benefits paid for by U.S. taxpayers. This may explain why the BBG members and staff have been eliminating broadcasting positions at the Voice of America and giving money to private contractors at its broadcasting entities operating outside of the U.S. government.

BBG members have also been know to promote hiring of their former business associates and friends. Steven W. Korn, former Vice Chairman and Chief Operating Officer of CNN, has been named Friday President of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), one of several semi-private broadcasting entities run by the BBG. The BBG Chairman Walter Isaacson is is the former Chairman and CEO of CNN. RFE/RL’s board of directors, which made the selection, consists of members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. The BBG is a bipartisan board comprised of nine members. Eight, no more than four from one party, are appointed by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate; the ninth is the Secretary of State, who serves ex officio. In addition to Chairman Isaacson and Secretary Clinton, they include Victor H. Ashe, Michael Lynton, Susan McCue, Michael P. Meehan, Dennis Mulhaupt, Dana Perino, and S. Enders Wimbush.

“We are losing war of ideas because we are not in the arena the way we were in the Cold War… just at the moment when there is this ferment for democracy breaking out,” said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in her recent testimony before the United States Congress.  It was an indirect criticism of the BBG bureaucracy, which had eliminated VOA Arabic broadcasts and spent hundreds of millions of dollars on semi-private broadcasting to the Middle East without changing any of the negative attitudes in the region toward the United States.

The reasons for the failure of the BBG were also described by former Voice of America Director Robert R. Reilly who served during the Reagan Administration:

“The BBG became a stand-alone agency run by part-time board members, most of whom have had no experience in foreign policy or public diplomacy. The eight Board members exercise executive power, to the extent that eight CEOs can, and are not directly accountable to anyone.  Since the professional backgrounds of the governors have been mainly in American mass media, they have sought to replicate that media in government broadcasting by refashioning much of it with American pop culture – Radio Sawa being the primary example. Over the past decade, the BBG has seen fit to eliminate VOA’s services to Brazil in Portuguese, to Russia, to India in Hindi, to the Arabic world, and now to China in both Mandarin and Cantonese.  There seems to be a perverse logic at work here, in which it has abandoned attempts to reach the most important audiences in terms of our national strategic interests about who we are, what we are doing, and why.

In the Arab world, the VOA 12-hour, content-rich Arabic service was replaced with a 24-hour pop music station featuring the likes of Britney Spears, Jay Lo, and Eminem. The intellectual premise of this effort, as explained to me by the chairman of the board when I served as the director of VOA, was that ‘MTV brought down the Berlin Wall.’  Radio Sawa has been proclaimed a success in attracting large youth audiences.  However, as the dean of journalism in Jordan informed me, ‘Radio Sawa is fun, but it is irrelevant.’  In a war of ideas, performing a lobotomy on your enemy might be a good move.  It is almost unheard of to perform a lobotomy on your self, and then to declare it a success. How would you like to have a superpower adolescent in your neighborhood?”

“The current set-up of U.S. international broadcasting with nine politically-connected individuals has a great potential for mismanagement, waste of taxpayers’ money, and numerous conflicts of interest,” said Free Media Online President Ted Lipien. “Instead of one CEO who would be fully accountable to the American people and the Congress, we have eight individuals, not counting the Secretary of State, who each have their own ideas, private interests, and friends whom they may want to hire as full time employees or private contractors. This may explain eliminating broadcasting jobs and draining funds from the Voice of America despite clear evidence that VOA has had a larger audience, better name recognition, and greater impact in countries like Russia and China. Ted Lipien is a former director of BBG Marketing and Program Placement Office for Eurasia and former acting Associate Voice of America Director.

In a Washington Times editorial published last March, Lipien wrote:
“The Internet is inaccessible for 750 million Chinese. A listener to VOA radio programs in China is not likely to be a Chinese with an iPhone who goes on shopping trips to New York but someone like Liu Xia, wife of imprisoned Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo. Kept under house arrest, she once succeeded in sending an email to a friend, in which she wrote, ‘I don’t know how I managed to get online.’ She then warned her friend, ‘Don’t go online. Otherwise my whole family is in danger.’ BBG officials turn their backs on people like Liu Xia when they claim that ending VOA radio to China would help them develop new media tools to reach a younger, Internet-using audience.” Lipien ended his Washington Times op-ed with a comment about the BBG executive staff, which claims to be able to overcome Internet censorship in China but had failed to protect VOA websites from an Iranian cyber attack:

“The ability of the BBG executive staff to make wrong decisions has been so uncanny that simply by examining their program-cutting proposals, members of Congress easily could have predicted new outbreaks of unrest and assaults on free media shortly before they happened. Congress should not allow this group of managers to commit yet another blunder with a gift to the Chinese Communist Party as it celebrates its national holiday on Oct. 1, the proposed date for ending VOA radio to China.”

Human rights and media freedom advocates in the U.S. have been reposting this Tiananmen Anniversary video. Free Media Online urges further reposting and linking to this powerful video.

8964 from sofunny on Vimeo.

8964 from sofunny on Vimeo.

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 U.S. Consulate General in Krakow, Poland, sent its Public Affairs Officer Benjamin Ousley Naseman to a conference “Ronald Reagan’s Crusade for Freedom” (Krucjata Wolnosci Ronalda Reagana) at the Jagiellonian University. The U.S. Embassy in Tallinn, Estonia, helped to kick off a Ronald Reagan Film Festival, with opening remarks from Chargé d’Affaires Robert Gilchrist. In addition, the Embassy is bringing to Tallinn noted Reagan expert Dr. Lee Edwards, who will be the keynote speaker at a February 14 seminar organized by the Estonian Foreign Policy Institute and held in cooperation with the Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, titled “Ronald Reagan 100: President Reagan’s Legacy and Estonian-U.S. Relations.”

But the vast majority of America diplomats treated Reagan’s 100 birthday as if it were a plague. The U.S. Embassy in Warsaw, Poland — a country on which Ronald Reagan had focused more during his presidency than on any other nation in East-Central Europe — had Internet postings on World War II American photojournalist in Poland Julien Brian and the Holocaust Remembrance Day — both good public diplomacy themes but not really very relevant to the current state of U.S.-Polish relations. The U.S. Embassy in Warsaw was also promoting American hip-hop culture at what was described as “the biggest break dance event Rock The Floor featuring American b-boys Abstrak from New York as a judge,” but the embassy website homepage had nothing on Ronald Reagan’s support for the Solidarity movement and Poland’s independence. Why the U.S. embassy should be involved in pushing the style of American music and culture — known for its obscene, offensive, and misogynistic lyrics and behavior — in a mostly Catholic and fairly conservative country like Poland, is frankly beyond me. I think the Poles have much higher expectations of American culture and would benefit more from other examples — American music more appropriate for promoting goodwill toward Americans and appreciation for their cultural achievements.

The U.S. Ambassador to Poland Lee Feinstein, an Obama appointee and one of Hillary Clinton’s former associates, did not mention the 100 anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s birth in his Ambassador’s Blog postings. There was also nothing on Ronald Reagan on the U.S. Embassy Warsaw Facebook Page. The U.S. Embassy Warsaw official Blog has not been updated in months. At least, Ambassador Feinstein did not object to the U.S. Consulate in Krakow participating in a Ronald Reagan birth anniversary observance. Krakow was a center of anti-communist resistance in Poland and remains a center of conservative thought. I don’t know to what extent the U.S. Consulate in Krakow was involved in organizing the Reagan-related conference or whether it simply responded to a local initiative, but at least the staff had the courage to send a speaker and post something about the event on their website. This is more than most U.S. diplomatic posts in the region have done.

The list of U.S. diplomatic posts in East-Central Europe which have completely ignored the 100 anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s birth is quite long, if one does not count automatic brief postings on a few embassy websites of a single America.gov article, which was written at the State Department in Washington. Not even the U.S. Embassy in Minsk, Belarus — a country still run by a post-communist dictator — bothered to mark the Reagan anniversary. The Minsk Embassy website prominently features an article on “New English Teaching Methodologies.” The embassy website does not even provide a link on its homepage to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which had posted recordings of former U.S. President George Bush and former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice(not President Obama or Secretary of State Clinton because they did not participate) reading the names of President Lukashenka’s political prisoners.

The U.S. Embassy in Kyiev, Ukraine had a posting on the upcoming visit of Mary Wilson of The Supremes and “The Story of The Supremes Exhibit” — certainly, a better example of American culture than hip-hop — but again nothing on Ronald Reagan. Keep in mind that all of these are U.S. public diplomacy events subsidized in some way by U.S. taxpayers.

The U.S. Embassy in Tirana, Albania, features on its website a link to the State Department website page “Dreams for My Mother, Dreams for My Daughter” on empowering women and girls as a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy, but again nothing about Ronald Reagan. (I wonder how this public diplomacy theme in support of women’s rights squares with sponsoring hip-hop events by U.S. diplomatic posts. Mr. Obama likes hip-hop, but would Hillary Clinton approve spending U.S. taxpayers’ money on promoting musical culture described as “ignorant, misogynistic, casually criminal and often violent” ? )The U.S. Embassy in Prague, the Czech Republic, promoted the screening of Kings Row(1942), starring Ronald Reagan, along with other Hollywood films, but failed to note that last Sunday was the 100 anniversary of Reagan’s birth. The U.S. Embassy in Bratislava, Slovakia, at least highlighted the America.gov article President Ronald Reagan: A Legacy of Freedom in Europe, but like most U.S. embassies it did not sponsor any Reagan-related special events and its website‘s main “Spotlight” was “Haiti After One Year.” I was particularly amazed that the U.S. embassies in Latvia (U.S. Embassy Riga) and Lithuania (U.S. Embassy Vilnius) — the two countries, in addition to Estonia, most exposed to pressure from Russia — completely ignored the anniversary. But, of course, the vast majority of U.S. diplomatic posts in the region did as well. The U.S. Embassy in Moscow had nothing on Ronald Reagan on its homepage, and neither did the official Blog of U.S. Ambassador to Russia John Beyrle. The U.S. Embassy Moscow Facebook Page, however, did have a link to the website of the Voice of America Russian Service, which — to its credit — prepared a number of special programs and interviews to mark the 100 anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s birth. (VOA Russian Service had interviewed former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton.) We should all be grateful that the Voice of America is not under the direct control of the White House or the State Department, but VOA’s bipartisan managing body, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), had terminated VOA Russian radio broadcasts in July 2008, just 12 days before the Russian military attack on Georgia. Only a very tiny segment of the Russian public looks these days at the VOA Russian website. The U.S. Consulate General in St. Petersburg– a city considered much more liberal than Moscow — had nothing on its website on Ronald Reagan. Ironically, the Consulate had posted a large banner publicizing its sponsorship of “Film Noir: The Other Side of Hollywood,” described as “Russia’s first-ever festival dedicated to film noir and the other side of Hollywood.” There was no mention of Ronald Reagan.

On the other hand, as reported by the Wall Street Journal “(Reagan Belongs to the World –
Countries in Eastern Europe join the celebration, in recognition of Reagan’s role in their liberation from communism“), the East Europeans themselves understood perfectly the significance of the Ronald Reagan’s 100 birthday anniversary. They have a far better sense of history than most U.S. diplomats in the region.

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

In Poland, a special website devoted to the 100 anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s birthday urged the Poles to sign an online thank-you card to honor the memory of the former U.S. president. A special Catholic mass was celebrated in Krakow to honor both Reagan and Pope John Paul, his partner in bringing about the fall of communism in Central and Eastern Europe. NGOs, government bodies, and private citizens throughout the region organized numerous other events to celebrate Ronald Reagan’s legacy, thus putting U.S. diplomats, the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Judith McHale, and the rest of the State Department to shame.

I would argue that almost nothing was done by U.S. embassies in Central and Eastern Europe for this important anniversary because U.S. public diplomacy has become the domain of self-serving bureaucrats working within a broken, non-functioning system at the State Department. The current public diplomacy infrastructure had replaced the U.S. Information Agency (USIA), which was abolished during the Clinton administration. At least, American diplomats working for USIA enjoyed some measure of independence from the State Department’s political appointees, ambassadors and career political officers, and thus were able to take a longer view of American foreign policy interests. Even then, during the Cold War, I found that many career diplomats, including some USIA officers with whom I had worked at the Voice of America (VOA), did not have a very high opinion of Ronald Reagan. One USIA officer described Ronald Reagan as a raving lunatic after his “Evil Empire” speech, and, even while Ronald Reagan was at the White House, State Department political officers at the U.S. Embassy in Warsaw attempted — unsuccessfully — to stop the Voice of America Polish Service from interviewing Solidarity leader Lech Walesa after he had been released from a communist prison.

Still, at least then, there were other Foreign Service Officers with whom I had professional contacts, who understood the importance of independent journalism and public diplomacy in support of human rights. Two of them became later U.S. ambassadors to Poland. While there were some differences between Democratic and Republican administrations, there was a general agreement on what represents good public diplomacy. Anyone who now thinks that there is such a thing as bipartisan public diplomacy designed to further long-term U.S. interests around the world regardless of who sits in the White House would have to conclude after watching the latest snubbing by American diplomats of the legacy of a former U.S. president — one who is particularly revered in Eastern Europe — that this idealistic assumption is no longer true. Most career State Department officials these days think first and foremost about who calls the shots at their embassies and in Washington, their performance evaluations, their next assignment, and their considerable perks. Keeping each one of these senior Foreign Service Officers abroad costs U.S. taxpayers at least $250,000 a year.

The State Department’s public diplomacy infrastructure has become highly bureaucratized and politicized. If we had a Republican president or even a less ideological Democratic president like Bill Clinton, I would bet that all or most U.S. diplomatic posts in Central and Eastern Europe would not miss Ronald Reagan’s birthday as an opportunity for a public diplomacy event or a special posting for their website. Even though most Foreign Service Officers probably don’t think much of Ronald Reagan, they would undoubtedly do something to mark the occasion with the different kind of leadership from the White House and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. But Barack Obama made it clear that he wants a “reset” with Russia and does not care much for public encouragement of human rights and pro-democracy movements a la Ronald Reagan. Only very few among the current generation of U.S. diplomats would dare to go against the tone set by the President and supported by the Secretary of State, even if she is not as keen as her boss on talking nicely to anti-American dictators.

A conspiracy theorist might think American diplomats gave the whole issue a lot of professional thought but ultimately concluded that calling attention to Ronald Reagan would cause the East Europeans to draw uncomfortable comparisons between President Reagan and President Obama. In my view, that was not the case.

One could even understand if not excuse this kind of thinking — giving priority to short-term foreign policy goals of a particular U.S. administration over long-term national interests. I’m afraid, however, that the truth is more prosaic. Having worked with American diplomats for over 30 years, I can say with some confidence that for most of them, if they were worried at all, they were worried primarily about their careers. Marking Ronald Reagan’s birthday with any kind of embassy-sponsored special events would be career-risky. It would look bad to their political bosses in the State Department and to the White House. For the vast majority, their decisions had nothing to do with what would be good for public diplomacy, long-term U.S. interests in the region, and expectations from the American taxpayers who pay their salaries. We no longer have many Foreign Service Officers of the same caliber as Ambassador Arthur Bliss Lane or Public Affairs Specialist John H. Brown. Ambassador Bliss Lane resigned during the Truman Administration in protest against the continuation of FDR’s policy with regard to Poland. John H. Brown resigned in protest against George W. Bush’s war in Iraq. Each represented the kind of diplomat who would not be afraid to risk his career to do what he thought was good for the United States.

In terms of effective public diplomacy themes in East-Central Europe, one could not ask for a better one than the centennial of Ronald Reagan’s birthday. For the East Europeans, Ronald Reagan not only contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union and helped the “Captive Nations” achieve full sovereignty and independence. Reagan also represents the final break in U.S. foreign policy from the legacy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt who, in the words of the words of Ambassador Bliss Lane, had “sold down the river” Poland and other East European nations at Tehran and Yalta to Josef Stalin.

What the East Europeans see now is a partial return to Roosevelt-style diplomacy in their region. Just as Roosevelt had been fooled by Stalin, Obama has shown FDR-like naivety in dealing with Vladimir Putin and his ex-KGB team that now owns Russia and runs it. Celebrating Ronald Reagan’s legacy at U.S. diplomatic posts in East-Central Europe would have send a signal to the government leaders, the media and the general public that not all U.S. presidents can be fooled by autocratic leaders and not every U.S. president is ready to abandon important political and military commitments to America’s allies to suit his particular personal worldview. For showing that most Americans would not tolerate a betrayal of U.S. allies, the Reagan anniversary offered a highly useful public diplomacy opportunity in East-Central Europe.

But U.S. public diplomacy has indeed become an expensive farce. Consider this fact: among dozens or perhaps even hundreds of highly-paid U.S. diplomats and other State Department officials who knew in advance that President Obama was going to announce his controversial decision to cancel President Bush’s missile defense commitments to the Polish government, apparently not a single one tried to warn the White House that making the announcement on the anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland would be a highly embarrassing public diplomacy disaster. They also allowed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to embarrass herself with the Russian mistranslation of the “Reset Button,” and the “reset” idea itself was, in the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski, “childish” as a public relations stunt.

There is no longer bipartisan consensus of what U.S. public diplomacy ought to be and no strategic plan of action. Hundreds of U.S. Public Affairs Officers abroad and public diplomacy specialists at the State Department have been unwilling or unable to save the Obama administration from other highly embarrassing public relations missteps in the foreign policy arena. Why even bother to have the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs if promoting hip-hop music takes precedence in Eastern Europe over Ronald Reagan’s legacy of support for freedom and human rights and his contribution to ending the Cold War and the freeing of the region from Soviet domination. The United States and the Free World no longer have a leader willing to lead the struggle for democracy and human rights, and therefore it has no public diplomacy to support this long-standing U.S. foreign policy goal. Ronald Reagan was such as leader. Sadly, President Obama is not.

Here is another stunning example of a completely one-sided report by VOA on U.S.-Russian relations. There is not a single sentence in this report about Congressional or any other U.S. domestic or international criticism of President Obama’s approach to managing relations with the Kremlin.

In my entire career with VOA spanning more than two decades, I’ve never seen such government PR being presented as thought-provoking, objective and balanced news and information. Not a word about critical comments by Senator John McCain, Senator George Voinovich, Senator Jim DeMint, or Senator Mitch McConnell. There is no mention of numerous American and international experts who have raised serious doubts about President Obama’s “reset” of relations with the Kremlin, including some reports by U.S. diplomats in Moscow — all of this information easily available to sophisticated news consumers abroad.

This particular Voice of America news analysis reminds me of Soviet-style radio reporting about the USSR’s everlasting commitment to peace, disarmament, and international cooperation.

The damage from such unbalanced Voice of America reporting is not limited to the English Service. It is multiplied worldwide as many understaffed VOA language services translate and use these reports, including VOA’s Russian Service. Американо-российские отношения: итоги года

I could not imagine more boring reporting unless it came directly from the Kremlin or the Obama White House. Even Voice of Russia (the old Radio Moscow) commentaries are more fun to hear, for those who can appreciate this type of humor, because of the inability of most Russian state-employed journalists and government officials to refrain from taking cheap shots at the United States.

I invite everyone to read the Voice of America English Service report and judge it for yourself.

2010 Productive Year for US-Russian Relations

André de Nesnera | Washington, DC 27 December 2010

The highlight was the U.S. Senate’s ratification in late December of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty – or New START.

Vice President Joe Biden, in his capacity as president of the Senate, read out the final tally.

“71 yeahs, 26 nays, two-thirds of the Senate present having voted in the affirmative, the resolution of ratification is agreed to,” said Biden.

Shortly after Senate ratification, President Barack Obama addressed reporters.

“This is the most significant arms control agreement in nearly two decades and it will make us safer and reduce our nuclear arsenals along with Russia’s,” the president said.

The Senate action represented a major victory for President Obama, who has made better relations with Moscow a cornerstone of his foreign policy.

The New START treaty sets a limit of 1,550 deployed strategic – or long-range – nuclear warheads. It also limits to 700 the number of operationally deployed strategic nuclear delivery systems such as long-range launchers and heavy bombers. The accord also provides for what the Obama administration calls strong verification measures – provisions that ensure each side complies with its treaty obligations.

The treaty now has to be ratified by the Russian parliament – or Duma – and by the Federation Council, Russia’s highest legislative body. Experts say passage is virtually guaranteed.

John Parker with the National Defense University [expressing his personal views], says the New START treaty is as important to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev as it is to President Obama.

“Since he [Medvedev] was intimately involved in negotiating it person-to-person with President Obama, it’s important. He invested a lot of time in it and when it’s ratified [by the Duma/Federation Council] he will, I’m sure, take a lot of political credit for it. So it’s important,” said Parker.

Many experts are now looking at what might be the next step in arms negotiations between Washington and Moscow. One of those is Steven Pifer with the Brookings Institution.

“When he signed the New START Treaty back in April, President Obama made clear that he would like to continue and in the next negotiation, address not only deployed strategic forces but address non-deployed strategic warheads – for example those nuclear warheads that are sitting in storage areas – and also address non-strategic or tactical nuclear weapons,” said

“And that opens up for the first time that the United States and Russia might be negotiating limits on all of their nuclear arsenals with the exception of those weapons that are in the dismantlement queue,” Pifer continued. “That’s going to be a hard negotiation because the sides will get into questions that they haven’t had to address before.”

Many analysts say the START negotiations and ratification process overshadowed other positive developments in US-Russia relations.

Robert Legvold of Columbia University says one of those was Moscow’s increased cooperation in Afghanistan.

“The most important element has been supporting transit of military equipment to Afghanistan. In the past, the U.S. has been more than two-thirds dependent on supply lines that cross the western border of Pakistan and that are vulnerable both to the insurgency in the area and at times the Pakistan government, when they protest American military actions,” said Legvold.

“So the fact that the Russians now enable both on land and air the transit of both non-lethal and lethal – that is military equipment to Afghanistan – is a critical element in sustaining the military U.S. and NATO effort within Afghanistan.”

Experts say Moscow also toughened its position on Iran, voting in favor of a United Nations Security Council resolution imposing new, tougher sanctions on Tehran – although the text was apparently watered down by Russia and China. Russia also canceled the delivery to Iran of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles – a deal dating back to 2007.

Russia also changed its position on missile defense. After strongly criticizing for many years U.S. plans for such an endeavor, Moscow agreed to cooperate in a NATO-led missile defense system.

Once again John Parker with the National Defense University.

“Politically it’s very important. [Russian President Dmitry] Medvedev signaled a readiness to cooperate in discussions with NATO on European missile defense. What it will eventually turn out to be it’s pretty hard to tell, but at least the two sides are going to be talking. So they are going to talk about how this cooperation might work out,” said Parker. “The important thing for the Russians is that they are in on the ground floor on all of this and not just handed a plan and asked to sign up to it.”

Looking ahead, experts say Moscow and Washington should build on the progress made in 2010. A key event in 2011 will be the expected review of Moscow’s application to become a member of the World Trade Organization – an application supported by the Obama administration.

Американо-российские отношения: итоги года

Андре де Нешнера Понедельник, 27 декабря 2010

Русская служба «Голоса Америки» – итоги года

Пожалуй, ключевым событием в американо-российских отношениях стала ратификация Сенатом США в конце декабря нового соглашения о сокращении стратегических наступательных вооружений.

Вице-президент США Джо Байден в качестве председателя Сената Соединенных Штатов зачитал результаты голосования:

«71 голос «За», 26 – «Против». Две третьих из числа присутствующих сенаторов проголосовали «За» – договор ратифицирован».

Вскоре после ратификации договора в Сенате президент США Барак Обама обратился к журналистам со словами:

«Это самое важное за двадцать лет соглашение о контроле над вооружениями, и этот договор сделает мир более безопасным и позволит сократить ядерные арсеналы США и России».

Ратификация договора Сенатом США стала важнейшей победой президента Обамы, который сделал задачу улучшения отношений с Россией краеугольным камнем внешней политики своей администрации.

По новому договору СНВ предполагается сократить количество ядерных боеголовок баллистических ракет до 1550 единиц с каждой стороны. Договор предусматривает сократить количество носителей ядерного оружия – пусковых установок баллистических ракет и дальних бомбардировщиков – до 700 единиц и у США, и у России. В американо-российском договоре также прописаны, как называет это администрация президента Обамы, четкие меры по проверке выполнения условий данного соглашения каждой из сторон.

Договор теперь должен быть ратифицирован Государственной Думой России и Советом Федерации. Эксперты говорят, что российский парламент практически гарантированно ратифицирует это соглашение.

Джон Паркер из Университета национальной обороны, выражая свое личное мнение, заявил, что новый договор о СНВ одинаково важен и для Президента РФ Дмитрия Медведева, и для президента США Барака Обамы:

«Учитывая, что президент Медведев непосредственно включился в обсуждение нового договора СНВ с президентом Обамой, то это соглашение имеет важное значение. Медведев потратил массу времени для достижения этого договора. И когда СНВ-3 будет ратифицирован парламентом России, я уверен, что президент Медведев получит политические дивиденды. Поэтому так важен договор СНВ», – отметил эксперт.

Многие эксперты сейчас пытаются представить, какую тему могут затронуть на следующих переговорах по контролю над вооружениями США и Россия. Вот что думает по этому поводу Стивен Пайфер из Брукингского института:

«Когда в апреле президент Обама подписывал новый договор о СНВ, он дал ясно понять, что хотел бы продолжить на следующих американо-российских переговорах обсуждение не только развернутых стратегических ядерных сил, но неразвернутых ядерных боеголовок, например, ядерных боеголовок, хранящихся на складах, а также провести переговоры по тактическому ядерному оружию. И это впервые открывает возможность для США и России начать переговоры об ограничении всего ядерного арсенала двух стран, исключая лишь ядерные вооружения, предназначенные для демонтажа. Это будут трудные переговоры, потому что стороны должны будут обсуждать вопросы, которых они до этого даже не касались»

Многие эксперты считают, что обсуждение нового договора по СНВ и процесс его ратификации оставили в тени другие позитивные сдвиги в американо-российских отношениях.

Роберт Легволд из Колумбийского университета говорит, что одним из таких позитивных моментов стало то, что Москва расширила сотрудничество по Афганистану:

«Самым важным элементом такого сотрудничество стало разрешение России осуществлять транзит военных грузов в Афганистан. В прошлом США для доставки двух третьих всех грузов в эту страну зависели от транспортных маршрутов в Афганистан, проходящих через западную границу Пакистана. И эти маршруты уязвимы и для ударов боевиков, действующих в этом регионе, и периодически для действий пакистанского правительства, когда оно протестует против некоторых операций американских военных. Поэтому тот факт, что русские разрешили транзит военных грузов по своей территории и по воздуху, имеет решающее значение для снабжения американских войск и контингента НАТО в Афганистане», – отметил Легволд.

Эксперты говорят, что Москва также ужесточила свою позицию по Ирану, проголосовав за резолюцию Совета Безопасности ООН о введении новых более жестких санкций против Тегерана, хотя Россия и Китай явно сумели смягчить окончательный текст данной резолюции. Россия также отменила поставку Ирану систем ПВО С-300 (договор о продаже Россией батарей С-300 Ирану был заключен еще в 2007 году).

Россия также изменила свою позицию по ПРО. Многие годы Россия резко критиковала планы США по развертыванию системы ПРО, но потом Москва согласилась на сотрудничество с НАТО в вопросе создания системы ПРО.

Джон Паркер из Университета национальной обороны считает:

«В политическом отношении, это очень важно. Президент России Дмитрий Медведев сигнализировал о готовности к сотрудничеству в ходе переговоров с НАТО по созданию системы ПРО над Европой. Во что это выльется, сейчас довольно трудно сказать, но по меньшей мере обе стороны продолжат переговоры о том, в какой форме это сотрудничество может развиваться. Для русских важно то, что им не просто вручили план и попросили его подписать, а они вовлечены в обсуждение этих планов»

Заглядывая вперед, эксперты говорят, что Москве и Вашингтону необходимо развивать успех, достигнутый в 2010 году. Ключевым событием в 2011 году станет давно ожидаемое рассмотрение заявки России на вступление во Всемирную торговую организацию. Эту заявку поддержала администрация президента Обамы.
Послать статью Распечатать Комментарии

Комментарии (5)
28-12-2010
К сожалению,чудовищная коррупция в России не даст нормально развиваться этим отношениям.Для того,чтобы ее победить президент Д.А.Медведев должен принять беспрецендентные меры
28-12-2010гоша (россия)
Медведев? меры?какие меры,Вы о чём говорите! евросоюзу и америке пора задуматься о построении железного занавеса но только с той стороны,а иначе наша псевдодемократия и у вас приживётся
28-12-2010
В реальности – если у России вырастет экономика, исчезнет коррупция, улучшатся дипотношения с близкими и далекими странами — Это будет самое огромное горе для США. Политический парадокс!
28-12-2010гоша (россия)
С такими как Медведев и Путин вобще разговаривать неочем…. можно “потерять лицо”
28-12-2010wwwert (ykr)
да я соглашаюсь, что будет рассмотрен план дальше. глубже. сколько же можно замораживать друг друга и держать мир в недоумении.

Related posts:

1. Misleading foreign audiences – America.gov or America.STATE – U.S. Senate Ratifies New START Treaty
2. Voice of America English programs go the way of Voice of Russia, says former VOA journalist
3. Independent US Bloggers Beat Voice of America and Radio Liberty in Delivering Uncensored News to Russia
4. Why U.S. Public Diplomacy No Longer Works and Can It Be Fixed?
5. Voice of America Report Shows Confusion and Divisions Over Obama’s Policy Toward Russia

 Sourced from: TedLipien.com

Opinia.US Truckee, CA, December 6, 2010 — The Guardian newspaper in the U.K. has released and commented on a number of leaked U.S. cables dealing with Poland. There needs to be a much greater scrutiny of these cables by mainstream U.S. media and political pressure from Polonia voters to force President Obama to change his course on Poland. The cables describe shameful treatment of an important U.S. ally by the President naively obsessed with Russia and Iran. The cables show that nearly all of the White House decisions, which weaken Poland’s security — such as providing a Patriot battery without working missiles – are designed to keep the Russian leaders happy with President Obama’s “reset” of relations with the Kremlin.

U.S. Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher and the Ambassador [U.S. Ambassador to Poland Lee Feinstein] made it clear  [ to Foreign Minister Sikorski and Defense Minister Klich] that the Patriots would not be integrated into Poland’s air defense system. Such a move would require a U.S. Presidential decision, and the President has made no such decision. It would be important for Poland to work with the United States to cultivate realistic public expectations for future Patriot rotations.

However, this is a good juncture to point out the most glaring gap in understanding between us and the Poles. The Poles have not been told that the battery will rotate without actual missiles — i.e., not only will the rotation not be operational in the initial phase (due to C4ISR and other issues) but it will also not be operational, and certainly interoperable, at any point in our current plans. This will be a question of basic definitions for the Poles: is it a Patriot battery if it doesn’t have live missiles? The Poles think the Patriots will become not only operable, but interoperable, over time – thus enhancing Poland’s air defense. When told last Fall that the Patriots would not be operational, at least at first, Deputy Defense Minister Komorowski angrily responded that Poland expected to receive operational Patriot missiles, “not potted plants.”

Waszczykowski was less adamant about Patriots, stating that Poland and the U.S. had a binding political agreement on security matters, which he hoped the United States would respect. He added that Poland “wants U.S. boots on the ground” — not necessarily as a tripwire, but as a deterrent. Nowak similarly stressed Poland’s strong interest in “deepening” military cooperation, ideally to include a large U.S. footprint in Poland. He mused that one Patriot battery and ten MD interceptors do not constitute the “impressive presence” that Poland is hoping for.

 

Presidential Advisor Waszczykowski reacted more emotionally. While Washington is entitled to talk to Russia, to work toward a solution to the Iranian threat, and to make its own decision about the MD initiative, the U.S. should take care not to undermine Poland’s security. He then wondered aloud, “How long will it take you to realize that nothing will change with Iran and Russia?” Waszczykowski asserted that Moscow is trying to regain its sphere of influence and stressed the critical importance of an increased U.S. or NATO presence for Poland’s security. He added that Russia continues to deny its historical wrong-doings against Poland, imposes economic sanctions against Poland at will, and frequently disrupts the flow of oil and gas.

Waszczykowski, who served as Poland’s Ambassador to Tehran (1999-2002), agreed that Iran poses an increasing threat to the United States and Europe. He said that the Iranian regime has no incentive to warm relations with Washington because the regime has built its own legitimacy on the cornerstone of anti-Americanism.

Komorowski was skeptical that a regional approach to contingency planning was the best way ahead. Komorowski said Warsaw would prefer a unique plan for Poland, although he allowed that Warsaw could accept the notion of two complementary chapters for Poland and the Baltic States within EAGLE GUARDIAN.

Opinia.US Commentary

President Obama runs the show and uses Poland  in his naive game to win over Russia and change Iran. He has found an ally in Secretary of Defense Robert Gates who sees benefits for the military establishment and private military contractors by steering Obama toward expanding military operations in Afghanistan with the help of Russia.

U.S. officials visiting Poland have no authority to negotiate anything beyond what the President wants. Some U.S. officials appear unsold on Obama’s Utopian vision, but they are powerless to correct his policy. The leaked U.S. State Department cables show Polish officials as frustrated, embarrassed and resigned since Poland has no choice but to accept whatever President Obama is willing to offer.

Except for Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Poland has never been treated in such a shameful way by any other U.S. administration. Looking on the bright side, President Obama’s foreign policy and his treatment of Poland are not typical of what the U.S. and the American people stand for and are not likely to survive his presidency, just as FDR’s appeasement of Stalin did not survive his. Barack Obama may very well be only a one term president.

Unless forced to do otherwise, the Obama Administration will be treating Poland as a country that only needs to be placated with empty gestures (Patriot battery without live missiles, sending Vice President Biden to Warsaw).

The only thing that can change the White House policy on Poland is sufficient public relations and political pressure from U.S. media, Polonia voters, and voters of other Central European backgrounds, that President Obama, his advisers, and the Democrats will fear and will not be able to ignore.

The Polish government should already have in place a public diplomacy campaign to explain and promote its views directly to the American public and the members of Congress.

 Sourced from: Opinia.US

According to the text of the Poland-related cable disclosed by WikiLeaks, an unidentified U.S. diplomat in Moscow repeated Russian media reports and subsequent statements by Russian officials, which distorted comments about Russia and the Russian military made by Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski on his visit to the United States in November 2009. The Russian media reports referred to Minister Sikorski’s request for U.S. forces on the ground in Poland to “protect against Russian aggression” — a phrase he never used in his speech delivered at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

Unlike some of the other leaked cables from the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, which show a healthy amount of scepticism on the part of U.S. diplomats about the real intentions and behavior of Prime Minister Putin and President Medvedev, the cable’s author in this case repeated and did not question doubtful claims made by Russian media and government officials.

Any sophisticated journalist or diplomat, however, would have good reasons to doubt whether the Polish Foreign Minister could have made such a provocative public statement. In fact, the cable’s author mentions in passing without any comment that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told the press that he did not believe that Sikorski had actually made the remarks. On the day the cable was written, Opinia.US was already reporting that comments attributed by the Russian media to Minister Sikorski were completely made-up.

Opinia.US reported in November 2009 that the Russian media used falsified quotes from Minister Sikorski’s speech in Washington, which were then repeated by irate Russian officials who attacked the Polish foreign minister for being anti-Russian. These attacks were then picked up by American and other Western media and, as we now know, by a U.S. diplomat, and broadcast to a much larger audience.

The Russian news agency responsible for releasing made-up quotes eventually apologized for its false reporting, as did the Russian Foreign Ministry, but not before negative media publicity around the world and diplomatic reports reaching Washington and possibly other world capitals.

This particular U.S. Embassy Moscow cable seems unusual, not only because it accepts at face value nearly everything that the Kremlin-controlled media and Russian officials were saying about Minister Sikorski’s non-existent comments, but also for its own unbalanced commentary reflecting the Kremlin’s position:

“Unfortunately, the Polish government had seeded some of this Russian response through their sponsorship of and statements in support of the EU’s Eastern Partnership Initiative (Ref C) [reference to a different diplomatic cable] and show of support to Georgia during the 2008 Russia-Georgia War. Further, the Polish MFA [Ministry of Foreign Affairs] has established a Bureau of European Security, which Polish diplomats jokingly refer to as the ‘Office of Threats from the East.’”

The title of the report is also quite telling: POLISH PM SIKORSKI REOPENS OLD FIGHTS. It seems to suggest an attempt to identify Sikorski with Cold War mentality, which the Obama White House and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had criticized earlier while promoting a ”reset” of relations with Russia. The author may have been trying to make herself or himself look good to her or his superiors in Washington but managed to make  a mistake in the title of the cable: PM stands for Prime Minister, whereas Sikorski is Poland’s Foreign Minister. The leaked cable also includes the following final, and also unbalanced comment, suggesting that the Kremlin has every reason to be critical of Minister Sikorski while Poland has no reason to be afraid of Russia:

“Comment: The GOR [Government of Russia] will take some time to digest Sikorski’s comments, and evaluate whether or not to alter the current positive trend in bilateral relations. Russia has many levers, including delaying the approval of a pending gas deal (Ref D). Sikorski has given anti-western elements in Russia ammunition against improved Russian relations with NATO and even with the U.S.”

The cable was signed by the U.S. Ambassador to Russia John Beyrle who is an experienced career diplomat, but it does not necessarily mean that it was written or even seen by him prior to being sent to Washington, as most embassy cables are sent under the ambassador’s signature. Judging by the simplistic style and analysis, the cable’s actual author was more likely a junior diplomat, but we simply don’t know.

It could have been also a subtle and sophisticated way for a senior U.S. diplomat in Moscow who may favor the “reset” of relations and sides with the Putin/Medvedev team to get the State Department to put pressure on the Poles to soften their warnings about Russia and its military. Such a sophisticated scheme seems, however, unlikely, but the cable’s author’s use of the word “unfortunately” and a reference to Polish diplomats’ joke is a subtle way of conveying to Washington that the Russian media and Russian officials may have good reasons to be critical of Minister Sikorski’s comments and to attack Polish foreign policy.

There are two possible explanations how media disinformation originates in Russia. It could have been a mistake by a careless or overzealous Russian reporter. Another explanation points to a carefully organized disinformation campaign designed to undermine Poland’s credibility in Washington and around the world by portraying Polish officials as anti-Russian and irresponsible.

Even if the Russian Foreign Ministry has to apologize later for repeating inaccurate statements, the public relations damage is already done and can never be fully reversed. The costs to the real perpetrator are low or non-existent since the original source of disinformation will not be identified. As we now see from the leaked cable, the lie introduced into the public domain can also influence U.S. foreign policy if American diplomats fall for it, which in this case, at least one diplomat who wrote the cable and those who cleared it, apparently did.

One way Russian intelligence operatives use to pass on disinformation is to cultivate junior and less sophisticated U.S. diplomats who then report false facts and misleading claims to Washington. These operatives may pose as journalists, diplomats, academics, or other experts.

A former U.S. diplomat speculated that this method may have been used to get the Obama White House to pick the anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland to announce the cancellation of the Bush missile defense system.

The historically symbolic timing of the announcement would have increased a sense of insecurity in Poland and convinced the Poles that the United States under President Obama has abandoned its ally as it did at the end of World War II under President Roosevelt. Russian diplomats, the Kremlin-controlled media, and Russian intelligence operatives in Poland could then exploit this both real and psychological Polish vulnerability to force a change in Poland’s foreign policy away from Washington and in favor of Moscow. This in fact has happened to some degree as Polish officials seem highly confused by the Obama Administration’s foreign policy and uncertain about their strategic options.

It is also doubtful that such sloppy and biased diplomatic reporting, as seen in the cable from the U.S. Embassy in Moscow about Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski, would have occurred if it were not for President Obama’s well-known preference for a “reset” in relations with Russia, which he has tried to achieve — so far without success — by depriving Poland of some of the U.S. missile defense plans and guarantees extended to Warsaw and other U.S. allies in Central Europe by the George W Bush Administration.

The author of this cable may be, however, an exception in her or his pro-Kremlin bias. Most of the other cables released so far by WikiLeaks show U.S. diplomats in Moscow pointing out, albeit in subtle ways, that President Obama’s hopes for a Russian quid pro quo in dealing with Iran, Afghanistan and other international issues are based on highly naive assumptions.

This report can be republished with attribution to Opinia.US.

Below is a copy of one of Opinia.US November 2009 reports which sets the background for this story.

Russia Attacks Sikorski on Comments About U.S. Troops in Poland

Opinia.US SAN FRANCISCO — A member of the Russian parliament has criticized Polish foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski for his comments during his visit this week to Washington, but the Polish foreign ministry has disputed the accuracy of Russian news reports quoting Sikorski’s statement. The point of dispute is whether Sikorski has publicaly asked for U.S. troops to be stationed in Poland, and what he actually said. There is little doubt that Poland wants more American soldiers on its territory as a protection against Russia. Sikorski met in Washington with Obama administration officials, but his scheduled meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was postponed when she decided to extend her diplomatic trip to the Middle East.

According to the Polish foreign ministry, the Russian news agency Interfax dispatch of November 5 2009 attributed “to the Minister comments which, in fact, he never made: ‘We would desire to secure American troops, deployed in our country as a shield against Russian aggression.’” The Polish foreign ministry said that this appears to be an intentional manipulation. “The passage at issue is in the form of a quotation, so there can be no question of it being distorted through an inaccurate interpretation or a lack of journalistic diligence. It would have been easy to check if the quoted statement had ever been made by examining a recording of the conference,” the Polish foreign ministry said.

During a panel discussion in Washington on Wednesday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Radoslaw Sikorski spoke about recent Russian large scale military exercises near Poland’s borders, which alarmed Polish officials. This is what he said in response to a question about security assurances from the Obama administration in light of the potential threat to Poland from Russia.

Listen to Foreign Minister Sikorski’s remarks

You can convince people by words. And we’ve just had a very good trip by the Vice President [Joe Biden]. And the words are convincing. But the point is — well, I’m a former defense minister — and what really convinces are the capabilities. And as I mentioned in my introduction, we’ve just had the largest Russian military exercise on the NATO border, on our border, in 20 years, using 900 tanks.

NATO planners used to say that God created Poland for tank warfare. And so these tanks that were exercising were 250 kilometers of flat ground from our capital city. We don’t know what kind of message the Russian Federation was trying to send to us, but you can imagine what we heard. And, as Zbig Brzezinski said — and he wasn’t the only one — what really reassured Germany, for example, during the Cold War was not Article 5 [NATO Treaty], which is in fact, you know, quite vague, but the presence of 300,000 American troops in Germany. Now, we have, I think, at the latest count, six American troops — one, two, three, four, five, six — outside the [U.S.] embassy. [Laughter] If you had, on the one hand, 900 tanks, and on the other, six troops, would you be convinced?

While the Polish foreign ministry statement focused on an apparently inaccurate quote in the Interfax news report, there is little doubt that Polish government officials would like to see more U.S. troops in Poland as an extra protection against Russia, and that this has been a subject of behind-the-scenes negotiations with Washington.

Revealing their ambition to influence and control military and foreign policy of former Warsaw Pact nations, Russian officials object to such talks between Poland the the U.S. Responding to the Interfax news report, a member of the Russian parliament said that Sikorski’s statements are “absolutely unacceptable.” Konstantin Kosachev threatened that Sikorski’s comments may lead to cooling of Russian-Polish relations.

Konstantin Kosachev, who heads the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Russian State Duma, was quoted by the Russia Today international television channel as saying that “Sikorski de facto calls on the US to review agreement between NATO and Russia, which provided that no large military contingent will be deployed on the territories of new NATO members.”

According to foreign minister Sikorski, there are now only six U.S. soldiers based in Poland. There is no doubt that the Polish side would like to see this number increase in light of the Russian attack on Georgia last year and the most recent Russian military maneuvers near Poland’s borders.

Polish and British media reported that Polish news magazine Wprost disclosed it has seen documents which show that troop exercises near Poland’s border in September portrayed Poland as “a potential aggressor.”

According to the Polish news magazine, 30,000 Russian troops practiced not only defensive manoeuvres but also rehearsed landings on the beaches of Kaliningrad – a Russian controlled corridor linking it with the Baltic Sea – which was used to simulate Poland’s northern coast. Russian aircraft also practiced the use of nuclear weapons in the attacks, the magazine reported, but these reports could not be independently verified.

Mainstream media in the U.S., including The Washington Post and The New York Times, have not reported on the Russian military maneuvers. The Obama administration had no reaction — something that would be almost automatic during previous administrations. There was also no report by the Voice of America English service, which also ignored Sikorski’s visit to Washington. VOA has not been broadcasting radio programs to Poland for a number of years. In fact, most of the international coverage of Sikorski’s visit to Washington came from the Russian government-funded Russia Today television channel.

During his stay in Washington, Sikorski was interviewed by Associated Press but few U.S. newspapers and other media outlets used the AP news story based on the interview. He was also interviewed by Foreign Policy magazine.

This is how foreign minister Sikorski explained his current thinking about the Obama administration missile defense plans for Central Europe and about Poland’s view of Russia.

Radoslaw Sikorski: The administration has now explained its position more thoroughly, and we are now satisfied and want to go where the U.S. is leading, toward a more adaptive and more proven system. [The new system] will take longer to construct, but will create fewer tensions in our region. I think we’re now on the same page with the U.S., and we are ready to address the details and the amendments to the agreements I signed with the previous administration.

Sikorski also responded to a question whether the Obama administration’s “reset” with Russia is worthwhile?

Radoslaw Sikorski: I would only advise that the more you talk to Russia, the more you should talk to Russia’s neighbors, who sometimes feel vulnerable, particularly after what Russia did in Georgia a year ago. We would like relations between Russia and the U.S. to be better than they are. We don’t want to be a front-line state. Russia is our second largest trading partner. If there were a return to confrontation, we would be much more adversely affected than the United States. The trick is to persuade Russia that she can be a significant partner without using 19th- or 20th-century instruments that have been tried with such tragic consequences.

 Sourced from: Opinia.US

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

The interment took place at the Cemetery at the Shrine of Our Lady of Czestochowa in Doylestown, Pennsylvania, on Saturday Sept. 11. Zofia Korbonska was burried next to her husband, Stefan Korbonski, who was the Polish Government-in-Exile’s delegate and director of the Directorate of Civil Resistance, which coordinated non-military resistance efforts by the Polish populace against the German occupying forces. Zofia and Stefan gathered information from the extensive network of the Polish Underground Resistance, and Zofia was the cipher clerk who encoded the messages for transmission to Great Britain. Among the news first reaching the West by this route were: information about medical experiments on women prisoners in the Nazi German concentration camp at Auschwitz; the location of Hitler’s command bunker in East Prussia; the outbreak of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1943; daily reports on the fighting during the three weeks of that Uprising; the final deportation of ghetto residents and destruction of the ghetto; tests of V-1 and V-2 weapons on Polish territory; daily reports on the fighting during the 63 days of the Warsaw Rising which began on August 1, 1944; the “liberation” by the Soviets which marked the beginning of the next occupation of Poland.

After Zofia Korbonska and her husband escaped from Poland in 1947 to avoid arrest by the communist regime, former U.S. ambassador to Warsaw Arthur Bliss Lane urged Zofia to apply for a job at VOA’s Polish Service. A friend of the Korbonskis, Ambassador Bliss Lane was aware that during World War II the person in charge of U.S. radio broadcasts to Poland was a Polish communist who after the war returned to Poland and became one of the Polish Communist Party’s chief anti-American propagandists.

Ambassador Bliss Lane, who had resigned from the State Department in 1947 in protest against the Yalta Agreements and the lack of sufficient U.S. response to communist repression in Poland, was hoping that Zofia Korbonska would help to change the pro-Moscow tone of U.S. radio programs to Poland. She and other Polish journalists hired after the war helped to restore accuracy and balance in VOA Polish broadcasts. In his book I Saw Poland Betrayed, Ambassador Bliss Lane described the Soviet domination of Poland and the crushing of the democratic opposition to the Soviet-imposed communist government. He was also critical of U.S. radio broadcasts to Poland during the Roosevelt and Truman Administrations prior to the hiring of Zofia Korbonska and other pro-democratic Polish journalists and writers.

Zofia Korbonska described her work at the Voice of America as “the continuation of the struggle in which she had engaged as a member of the Polish Underground, this time waged from the West against the Soviet Union, the new occupying power in Poland.” She viewed VOA’s mission at that time as corresponding to what she and her husband wanted work for: “the restoration of freedom and independence to the nations in Central and Eastern Europe under the Soviet domination.”

Zofia Korbonska received hundreds of letters and even presents from listeners in Poland. The letters were sent surreptitiously from Poland at some danger to those who sent them. The gifts included an effigy of the Soviet Marshal Konstantin Rokossovsky who on Stalin’s orders was put in charge of the Polish communist armed forces. In attacking Zofia Korbonska’s work at the Voice of America, a communist media commentator in Poland called her “a nightingale in a golden birdcage of American warmongers,” but she and other VOA Polish Service broadcasters had millions of faithful listeners.

At the Voice of America, she originated such regular programs as “Life in Warsaw Under Communist Rule,” “Democratic Institutions in the United States;” “Young Club of Independent Thought;” and “Women in America.” She said, however, that she was most proud of her news reports during critical historical moments: the Polish workers unrest in 1956, the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, and her live reporting after the assassination of President Kennedy, which she described as one of the most dramatic moments of her radio career.

When I worked with her at VOA in the 1970s and the early 1980s, I remember most vividly Mrs. Korbonski’s constant frustration as a news editor with various attempts by American academics, journalists and some U.S. government officials to whitewash history by promoting such ideas as convergence between Soviet communism and Western democracy or the Sonnenfeldt Doctrine, which urged the Soviets and the Eastern Europeans to seek a more “organic” relationship. She would say that a few days in a Soviet prison might cure them of such silly and dangerous notions.

Zofia Korbonska rejoiced when Ronald Reagan was elected president. With her sharp sense of humor, she made fun of several USIA officials, still employed at the time at VOA in executive positions, who were horrified by some of President Reagan’s blunt statements about the Soviet Union. In a 2001 interview, she described her work at the Voice of America as “a beautiful period in [her professional life]” and as “a contribution to the victory over the Evil Empire.”

After the death of her husband in 1989, Zofia Korbonska founded the Stefan Korbonski Foundation in Washington, with a chapter in Warsaw; its “goals and aims are to clarify and preserve the memory of the true facts of the recent history of Poland, and most specifically of the Polish Underground State in the years 1939-45, of the contribution of Poland to the Allied victory in World War II and of the role in that fight of the Directorate for Civil Resistance, headed by Stefan Korboński.”

In failing health, she became house-bound for the last several years of her life. Her significance to the recent history of Poland was recognized by Polish President Lech Kaczynski, who bestowed on her the high decoration of Grand Cross of Polonia Restituta. During his visit to the United States in February 2006, since she was unable to leave her house, the President came to her humble apartment in Washington to personally present this high honor.

Zofia Korbońska

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI

10 IX 2010 r.

“Miłość żąda ofiary” – te trzy słowa są dla mnie streszczeniem esencji życia Zofii Korbońskiej.

Pochodzą z drugiej wojny światowej – z Polski walczącej.

Ale miłości czego? I jakiej ofiary?

Milość czegoś większego od siebie, czegoś nadrzędnego, czemu się oddać należy całkowicie bez wahania…i nawet czasem bez wzajemności.

A ofiara bezgraniczna – bo własnego nawet życia.

Zofia Korbońska, urodzona trzy lata przed odzyskaniem niepodległości, pochodzi z pokolenia które dosłownie żyło Polską, upajało się Polską, przeżywało jako osobisty sukces każde osiągnięcie odrodzonego państwa.

Ktokolwiek żył jako dziecko w niepodleglej Polsce, to również przeżywał – upojenie zwycięską armią, budowa Gdyni – najbardziej nowoczesnego portu nad Baltykiem, COP – to namacalne poczucie osobistej dumy – sam to pamiętam.

I nagle ta upojna rzeczywistość Polski wolnej padła w ruiny, w poniżeniu i w przemocy.

Zofia Korbonska miała wtedy 24 lata – świt dojrzałości, na progu kariery, pełności życia osobistego we własnym kraju, poznania miłości – ale zamiast tego następne 6 lat to lata wojny i całkowitego poświęcenia się sprawie odzyskania niepodległości – to konspiracja, to służba w podziemnym radio Polski Walczącej – to wspólna praca z mężem Stefanem, kierownikiem Walki Cywilnej Polski Walczącej.

Miłość ządająca ofiary – to dzień po dniu, godzina po godzinie, narażanie własnego życia w służbie dla Polski – to straty sobie bliskich – to niepokój o swoich najbliższych, i o siebie samego, mając jednocześnie świadomość, że areszt to nie tylko śmierć, ale wpierw okrutne tortury by wymusić zdradę tajemnic Polski Walczącej.

Ale również i chwile uniesienia i nawet euforii – wielki zryw Powstania Warszawskiego.

Chorągwie biało-czerwone znów nad Warszawą – zbrojne wystapienie AK – młodzież z bronią tylko ręczną szturmuje bunkry okupanta.

Ale po dwóch krwawych miesiącach znowu klęska – Powstanie samotne, opuszczone, i zdradzone – wygasa.

I nowa okupacja ze Wschodu. I znów poniżenie i przemoc – sąd w Moskwie porwanych dowodców Polski Walczącej.

A potem – walka prawie że samotna, nawet kompromisowa, o uratowanie choćby częsci niepodległości w zniszczonej Polsce – i wkrótce by uniknąć śmierci w kazamatach UB, jeszcze większa ofiara miłości – przymusowa emigracja Zofii i Stefana Korbońskich – zdala od kraju, ale zawsze duchem w kraju.

Zagranicą – praca trwała i ciężka, o niepodleglość i o wolność dla Polski – przez kilkadziesiąt lat – walka wymagająca poświęcenia i cierpliwosci oraz i głębokiej wiary – ale poświęcenie, cierpliwość, i wiara – to są cechy prawdziwie trwałej miłości.

Każdy kto znał Zofię Korbońską wie z jakim oddaniem, a jednoczesnie z osobistą skromnością i wybitną mądrością polityczną, ona tej wielkiej sprawie niezłomnie służyła – aż do samego końca.

I – dzięki Bogu – dożyła chwili wielkiego zwycięstwa, odzyskania wolności i niepodległości przez naród, który przetrwal bo był przesiągnięty tradycją i duchem AK – Polski Walczacej – Polski Podziemnej, i na emigracji, Polski suwerennej – Polski pokolenia Zofii Korbońskiej.

Naród zwyciężył bo był wierny zasadzie, że milość żąda ofiary.
Ale jednocześnie Solidarność wygrała bo była świadoma, że miłość również wymaga rozwagi.

Odwaga historyczna i rozwaga strategiczna – to była myśl przewodnia narodu zjednoczonego w solidarności – że zwycięstwo bezkrwawe może być jeszcze większym triumfem niż zwycięstwo krwawo wywalczone.

Zofia Korbońska – bohatersko odważna w walce, rozważna na politycznej emigracji – była przykładem na czym polega oddana i udana służba w wielkiej sprawie.

I dlatego też mamy prawo oczekiwać szczególnie od rodaków w kraju –w znów wolnej Polsce dziś żyjących, w Polsce która jest sojusznikiem Stanow Zjednoczonych i integralną częścią jednoczącej się Europy – że swą kulturą polityczną i umiarem w demokratycznym rządzeniu udowodnią, że są godnymi następcami pokolenia Zofii Korbonskiej.

Pokolenia, które pokazało, w najtrudniejszych latach w historii Polski, że bezgraniczna miłość dla kraju może być jednocześnie mądra i zwycięska.

View Dr. Brzezinski’s speech as Word document

View Dr. Brzezinski’s speech as PDF document

Photo of Zofia Korbonska’s interment at the Cemetery at the Shrine of Our Lady of Czestochowa in Doylestown, Pennsylvania, on Saturday Sept. 11, 2010 was provided by Marek Walicki. Zofia Korbonska was burried next to her husband, Stefan Korbonski, who was the Polish Government-in-Exile’s delegate and director of the Directorate of Civil Resistance, which coordinated non-military resistance efforts by the Polish populace against the German occupying forces.

Window on Eurasia: Putin Speaks the Language of ‘a Tatar Khan,’ Michnik Says

Paul Goble

Staunton, September 10 – Adam Michnik, the editor in chief of Warsaw’s “Gazeta Wyborcza,” says that many Russians he has encountered in his recent visit to Russia for the Valdai Club and Yaroslavl Political Forum are clearly 21st century people, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is out of step with them and “speaks the language of a Tatar khan.”

That was just one of the observations Michnik, who has long described himself as “an anti-Soviet Russophile,” made in the course of an interview published today in Moscow’s “Novaya gazeta” about both the current political situation in Russia and the ways in which the West is reacting to it (www.novayagazeta.ru/data/2010/100/05.html).

Michnik said his coming to the two events was opposed not by his Polish friends but by his Muscovite ones, who feared that his appearance along with other Western commentators and experts would “legitimate” Putin’s regime, given that the Valdai Club is “a circus organized in order to improve” Moscow’s image in the West.

Indeed, the Polish editor said, such views reflect the notion among some that anyone who comes is playing the role of Leon Feuchtwanger who visited the USSR in 1937 and wrote an approving book about it. But that analogy is wrong. Feuchtwanger “lied about the Moscow trials,” and comparing today’s Russia with that of 1937 is “nonsense,” Michnik argued.

“My task,” the longtime Polish dissident continued, “was never to legitimate any regime, only to listen and express my opinion,” given that “except under extraordinary conditions, one should not completely refuse from taking part in a dialogue with the powers that be.” But that is not to endorse those who attend such meetings and then praise their hosts to the skies.

Michnik said that he had been most impressed by many Russians he met prior to Putin’s appearance, by the way in which they discussed openly their problems in a way that would be the envy of any country, including his own. But when Putin spoke, it became clear that there is not “one” Russia but “two” very different Russias.

The former is very much part of the 21st century, he said, but meetings first with St. Petersburg Governor Valentina Matvienko and then Putin made him feel that he had “returned to the times of 25 years ago” and was seeing “the classic style of the Polish apparatchik[s] of socialist times.”

Citing President Dmitry Medvedev’s observation about “legal nihilism” in Russia, Michnik said he asked two questions, one about the popular protests over the Khimki forests and the other about whether Mikhail Khodorkovsky might be released as an indication that Russia was “overcoming” this plague.

Michnik said he was “shocked” by the change in Putin’s visage when he heard the second question: “With passion, [Putin] began to say: ‘the chief of his guards killed people! How could he not know about this? He has blood on his hands.’” Up to that point, Putin was a cool professional, but in this case, he “displayed deep emotions,” suggesting a “personal” tie.

The reason he asked about Khodorkovsky, Michnik said, was because “here is the very important issue of trust.” “When did trust in Gorbachev appear? When he telephoned [Andrey] Sakharov in Gorky.” At that moment, “it became understandable that all this was serious and not simple a playing with words about perestroika.”

“I think,” Michnik said, “that today trust in the Russian powers that be [with their announced intention to modernization] depends on the fate of Khodorkovsky.”

After he had asked his questions, Michnik said, Piotr Smolar of “Le Monde” followed up with questions about the Russian Constitution and the rights it provides. On the one hand, he said, the Russian basic law clearly does not run in Chechnya where shariat plays a bigger role. And on the other, he asked Putin about the handling of public demonstrations.

Putin responded to the second the way a Polish communist official would have 30 or more years ago, the Warsaw editor said. “What are we talking about?” Putin asked. “People have take part in unsanctioned demonstration? They have. They’ve provoked the militia? They have done so. Well, they’ll get it in the head. What would be different in London or Paris?”

“I was shocked,” Michnik continued, “that none of his advisors had explained to him that one must not speak in such terms, that this is the language of a Tatar khan and not of a politician of the 20th century.”
(The Polish commentator noted that “the last question” was an easy one, asked by Natalya Narochnitskaya, who is notorious for her attacks on any Western criticism of Russia. She asked Putin where he found “the strength” to go on. Putin responded that this “is a serious philosophical question” and said that “one must believe in Russia.”)

Asked what had “most surprised him,” Michnik suggested that this was that Putin “had subjected to doubt the bases of a functioning democracy while suggesting that he is not doing that. Under Brezhnev, it was said that we and the West had different systems of values. … But Putin says that in Russia everything is as it is in the West and vice versa.”

Not only did Russian prime minister suggest that in his comments about demonstrators, but he repeated it when asked when Lenin might be removed from the mausoleum on Red Square. Having learned that the individual who asked that was from Britain, Putin asked in turn “But don’t you in London still have a monument to Cromwell?”

Posted by Paul Goble at 10:44 AM

See the original post:
Democracy needs defending, Clinton affirms

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

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.”

Sen. Voinovich said that the decision leaves the impression that the United States is dealing unilaterally with Russia without regard to its NATO allies. “The way this decision was communicated shabbily to Poland and the Czech Republic should also send a shiver down the spines of our brothers and sisters in Eastern Europe and their Baltic neighbors who are concerned with Russia’s aggressive efforts to reassert its influence in what was once the Soviet Union,” Sen. Voinovich said on the Senate floor.

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

Press release from Sen. Voinovich’s Senate office.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Garrette Silverman or Stephanie Sonksen

September 24, 2009 (202) 224-8609

SEN. VOINOVICH FLOOR SPEECH ON

OBAMA’S REPEAL OF EASTERN EUROPEAN

MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator George V. Voinovich (R-OH) today spoke on the Senate floor on President Obama’s decision to abandon our missile-defense plan and how it will affect America’s image in Eastern Europe.

To view the speech, please visit Sen. Voinovich’s YouTube page at http://www.youtube.com/senvoinovich#play/user/869E6EAA8B06ACFA/15/PlmpDNS1MpU. Please find the full text below.

Floor Statement

U.S. Senator George Voinovich

“America’s Image in Eastern Europe”

September 24, 2009

Madam President, I rise today to discuss America’s relationship with our Eastern European friends as well as the challenges America faces with our relationship with Russia.

Over the last decade in the United States Senate, I have been a champion of NATO and worked diligently to increase membership in the alliance. I have also been active in improving our image in Eastern Europe through expansion of the Visa Waiver Program at the request of our friends and allies in Eastern Europe. My passion for foreign relations stems in large part from my history as a supporter of Ohio’s diverse ethnic communities. As Mayor of Cleveland and Governor of Ohio, I gained a keen understanding of Europe from my close work with constituents with ties to countries that were once subject to life behind the Iron Curtain.

We saw the Berlin Wall fall and the Iron Curtain torn thanks in part to the efforts of Pope John Paul II, President Reagan, and President George H.W. Bush. But even with the end of the Cold War, I was deeply concerned that darker forces in Russia could once again reemerge as a threat to democracy, human rights, and religious freedom not just for the Russian people – but for the newly freed “Captive Nations” of Eastern Europe.

I understood that getting these nations into NATO would make the alliance more vibrant and healthy and give them safe harbor from the possible threat of Russian expansionism. One of my proudest moments in the Senate was being present in March 2002 at the NATO Prague summit where seven countries — Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia — were invited to join NATO. When I was Governor of Ohio and Chair of the National Governor’s Association, I led an effort in 1998 to secure passage of an all-50 state resolution in support of NATO expansion for the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland. These new members have brought great vigor to the NATO Alliance and are now some of our strongest allies working alongside our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As such, I was astounded last week to see the Obama Administration appear to turn its back on some of our staunchest NATO allies. Last week’s missile defense announcement was made with little advance notice or consultation and disregarded the great political capital expended by the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic.

This decision leaves the impression that the United States is dealing unilaterally with Russia without regard to our NATO allies. Regardless of the merits of the decision itself, the manner it was revealed to Warsaw and Prague was a major public relations and public diplomacy blunder. The fact that the decision was announced on September 17, 2009—the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland—makes it even worse.

The way this decision was communicated shabbily to Poland and the Czech Republic should also send a shiver down the spines of our brothers and sisters in Eastern Europe and their Baltic neighbors who are concerned with Russia’s aggressive efforts to reassert its influence in what was once the Soviet Union.

In an opinion piece in last Friday’s Washington Post, David J. Kramer of the German Marshall Fund notes that “Whatever the official explanation now for not moving forward, many—including the Kremlin—will read this shift as an effort to placate Moscow… Announcing the decision ahead of [President] Obama’s meetings with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev [this] week [in Pittsburgh] reinforces such thinking.”

Madam President, I had the opportunity this past July to travel to the Baltic States with my friends Senators Durbin, Cardin, and Wicker as part of the U.S. Delegation to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Parliamentary Assembly in Vilnius, Lithuania. As part of that trip, I also visited Riga, Latvia—a stop that marked the highest-ranking U.S. official visit to Latvia in over three years. In all of our bilateral meetings with presidents, prime ministers, and foreign ministers from former Soviet countries, we were told that it was comforting for them to know that their membership in NATO serves as a hedge against a potentially expansionist Russia.

We should be worried about the uncertainties surrounding a Russia that is reverting back to a KGB-ruled country seeking to weaponize its oil and natural gas resources as a means to expand its influence on Europe and the West. Russia has the world’s largest reserves of natural gas and has the eighth-largest oil reserves. Moscow turned off the tap to Ukraine this past winter. They could do it again. We should also be concerned about Moscow using its control of oil and natural gas to pit members of NATO against each other.

Madam President, there is much talk about resetting the U.S. bilateral relationship with Russia. Moscow seeks to regain its global stature and be respected as a peer in the international community. There is nothing inherently wrong with this.

I believe there are key areas where the United States and Russia share common cause and concern: Russia is a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council and will be essential to effective multilateral pressure on Iran to give up its nuclear program; Russia continues to have leverage on the North Korean regime and has stated that a nuclear-free Korean peninsula is in the interest of both our countries; we are partners on the International Space Station; and, until the Georgia situation flared in August of last year, our government and U.S. industry were working hard on a nuclear cooperation agreement with Russia.

With the world economy as it is today, the worst thing we could do is break off communication and revert back to our Cold War positions. This week’s G-20 conference in Pittsburgh is an opportunity to further engage Russia and determine where we have a symbiotic relationship and what we can accomplish together for the good of the international community. Nevertheless, such a reset should not come at the expense of our Eastern European friends.

Madam President, time will tell whether last week’s decision will have any influence on Russian cooperation on the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) or our efforts to prevent a nuclear-armed Iranian regime.

In the meantime, we have our work cut out as we seek to rebuild confidence and trust with our friends in Eastern Europe. After last week’s events, I suspect that their confidence in the reliability of the United States as a partner and ally has been shaken.

Madam President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

– END –

Ms. Garrette M.K. Silverman
Communications Director
Senator George V. Voinovich
Phone: (202)224-7784
Fax: (202) 228-0501
Garrette_Silverman@voinovich.senate.gov
Sign up for Sen. Voinovich’s newsletter HERE.

“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

Download Free Photo – Вы можете скачать эту фотографию

President Barack Obama meets with former President Bill Clinton, Sen. Ted Kennedy and Vice President Joe Biden in the Oval Office April 21, 2009. Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy.

Download Free Photo – Вы можете скачать эту фотографию

President Barack Obama and Sen. Ted Kennedy participate in a national service event at The SEED School of Washington, D.C., April 21, 2009. Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson.

Download Free Photo – Вы можете скачать эту фотографию

President Barack Obama talks alone with Sen. Edward Kennedy in the Green Room of the White House March 5, 2009. Official White House Photo by Pete Souza.

See more photos on the White House 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.