A Guest Commentary from Canada by Edite Lynch

It has become worldwide knowledge that American President Barack Obama, in a sit-down chat with Prime Minister Medvedev of Russia, categorically stated that he would have more “flexibility” after the 2012 American election in November, which quite obviously he expects to win.

Considering the fact that very early in his presidency he quickly engaged with Russia and went through a mock ceremony of “Restarting” relations, it soon became apparent that he was giving away the store in the new START treaty and America was placed in a disadvantaged state vis a vis anti-ballistic missile defense.

Given this kind of information of sucking up to Putin’s Russia, it becomes even more disturbing when one hears about the strange and incomprehensible actions of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) toward both its U.S citizen broadcasters working at the Voice of America (VOA) but also the many foreign journalists and contractors who outnumber the Americans, as well as the termination of seasoned journalists to be replaced by neophytes untrained in media issues.

The “flexibility” comment becomes more insidious when viewed through the prism of what is happening with a very respected and valued organization such as the Voice of America which has operated for 70 years with tremendous results, especially in the former Soviet Union.

It is also common knowledge that a fish starts to decay from the head on down. Are the inexplicable machinations of the BBG managers being directed from a source that is by-passing the oversight committees in Congress?

Given the very obvious kowtowing to Russia and with the Voice of America Russian Service broadcasting a fake interview purporting to be that of Alex Nalvalny in order to discredit a valuable anti-Putin activist at will, without just cause and with impunity, the question must be asked, who is really pulling the strings in this situation?

If the BBG is acting as an island unto itself, with no real oversight from Congress, which appears to be the case except for its revised position regarding VOA Cantonese and Mandarin language broadcasts to China and Tibet, then that behaviour must be curtailed because American taxpayer dollars are supporting the BBG in a way that is neither fruitful nor productive given the VOA Charter and its abused employees.

The BBG managers are definitely not worth the money that is being paid to them for not doing what their job descriptions call for, which is to correctly manage America’s voice to the world in an exemplary fashion as well as a truthful one. There continues to be something rotten in the state of the BBG that is not being adequately addressed.

Send an email to BBG member Victor Ashe

Often referred to as a senior Republican member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), Ambassador Victor Ashe has invited the public, including BBG employees and contractors, to send comments to his personal email address, Send an e-mail to BBG member Victor Ashe, on the controversial plan to merge BBG-managed Radio Free Asia (RFA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), and Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN) into a single administrative unit.

Ashe has become a champion of transparency and raising employee morale at the federal agency which oversees U.S. international broadcasting. He is one of nine members serving on the bipartisan Board. In the absence of Michael Lynton, the BBG’s interim presiding governor, the meeting in Miami was presided over by Governor Dennis Mulhaupt. Governor Dana Perino was also absent. Both Lynton and Perino have a poor attendance record at BBG meetings. Lynton is a Democrat. Mulhaupt and Perino are Republicans.

Victor Ashe

While the open meeting of the Board on Friday at the headquarters of Radio and TV Marti in Miami was chaired by Governor Mulhaupt, Governors Victor Ashe and Michael Meehan clearly dominated the discussion. On-demand video and audio from the meeting is available on the BBG official website.

Ashe, who in addition to serving as U.S. ambassador to Poland was earlier the mayor of Knoxville, TN and is the most experienced public official on the Board, called attention to a number of unresolved issues in the proposal to merge the publicly funded surrogate broadcasters who get their grants from Congress through the BBG. He expressed concerns about the lack of information on the selection and the authority of the CEO for the merged entity. Ashe warned that rushing to implement the plan in its current form may damage U.S. international broadcasting and said that he would oppose the idea of selecting the CEO for the proposed entity as early as next month.

At one point Ashe was interrupted by another Republican member S. Enders Wimbush with whom he has had disagreements on various BBG issues. Ashe managed to introduce a parliamentary maneuver to divide the merger proposal motion into three separate questions and voted against an early selection of outside contractors to help implement the plan which has not yet been fully discussed and approved. He explained why he voted “no” by saying “I’m not comfortable with this, and I just don’t have enough information.” Ashe asked for a complete documentation of how the proposed merger can produce $10 million in savings. He also disclosed that the heads of broadcasting entities have reservations about the Global News Network. The network functioning as a news agency aggregating news content from all BBG entities was an idea of the former BBG chairman Walter Isaacson who suddenly resigned earlier this year. Critics have described the Global News Network as redundant and lacking a target audience.

Michael Meehan

Also raising reservations at the meeting in Miami about the proposed merger was BBG Democratic member Michael Meehan. Meehan is not opposed to streamlining BBG administrative operations, but he expressed concerns that a partial merger will only divert resources from other urgent BBG business without achieving desired results. Meehan believes that these resources would be better used for a comprehensive merger of U.S. international broadcasting operations involving all BBG entities.

Another BBG Democratic member Susan McCue disagreed with Meehan on proceeding with only the partial merger. She is working on a legislative proposal which she described as “U.S. Broadcasting Innovation Act.” She said that the proposed administrative merger of the three grantee organizations would help with the passage of the proposed legislation. She has not disclosed any details of her legislative proposal and has not invited public comments.

Meehan supported Ashe on the reversal of the proposed elimination of Voice of America (VOA) radio broadcasts to China, the closing down in FY 2013 of the VOA Cantonese Service providing radio, TV and Internet content, and reductions in Radio Free Asia broadcasts. At the BBG meeting in Miami, Meehan announced the decision to reject the earlier recommendations of the BBG executive staff on cuts in broadcasting to China by VOA and RFA.

S. Enders Wimbush

It is believed that S. Enders Wimbush, a strong supporter of ending Voice of America radio and television broadcasts in Mandarin and Cantonese to China, helped to push through the earlier staff recommendations which were rejected at the meeting in Miami. After a storm of criticism from human rights organizations and members of Congress, some BBG governors claimed that their executive staff did not brief them sufficiently on the FY2013 budget proposal for China and did not provide adequate public input.

Victor Ashe spoke at length at the meeting about the benefits of involving the public and major stakeholders in the discussions and cited President Obama’s statement in support of transparency in government. He urged BBG members not to rush major decisions on issues such as broadcasting to China and Tibet and the merger of the surrogate broadcasters. He suggested that the Board allocate more time for discussion and questions at future meetings.

Critics of the merger plan worry that if implemented in its current form it would undermine independence and effectiveness of the surrogate broadcasters as well diminish public and Congressional scrutiny over U.S. international broadcasting. They also fear that area experts and other professionals currently running these broadcasters will be replaced by International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB) bureaucrats who have devised the merger plan and made recommendations to limit broadcasting to Tibet, China and other countries without free media. Some critics have described the merger plan as a power grab by BBG and IBB executives who don’t like Congressional oversight.

Referring to the interim report on the proposed merger, which was prepared by an inside working group led by MBN head Brian Conniff, Victor Ashe said that he looks forward to hearing comments from the public when the document is posted on the official BBG website. It was suggested at the meeting that the report will be posted by May 1, but an unofficial copy of the interim report is already available online.

At the open meeting in Miami, Ashe said that Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Tara Sonenshine, who has been recently confirmed by the Senate and represents Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at BBG meetings, made valuable suggestions to BBG members about the importance of public input into government decision-making process.

Ashe asked the public to share their suggestions with him by sending them to his personal email address:

“I would encourage everyone who is listening, talk to your friends and share this among them once it goes on the website. It is an official document. It’s not a bootleg document. And share your ideas with us.

If you want to share them personally with me, my email is: vhashe@aol.com.

I’m more than happy to hear from you. I’m only one member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. My views only reflect myself. But if you want me to share whatever you send to me with my colleagues, I will more than happily do it.

But again, we want this process to be open, transparent — all the stakeholders at the table. And if we do that in good faith, in good conscience, at the end of the day — whatever the outcome is, wherever the vote falls — we will have a better product. We will have more of buying-in by the process than if we don’t.”

To demonstrate his commitment to transparency, Ashe disclosed at the open meeting the cost of his recent trip to Asia (between $7,000 and $7,500), during which he visited BBG radio transmission facilities and held discussions with U.S. embassy personnel and government officials in Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand. He said that he was the first BBG member visiting Laos in an official capacity. Laos has a communist-run government and government-controlled media. Ashe, who supports continued VOA and RFA shortwave radio broadcasts to Laos, noted the extensive Chinese economic presence and influence in the country.

Ashe also spoke about an unprecedented meeting the BBG’s Governance Committee had in March with representatives of the employee unions and contractors. Ashe was an early supporter of establishing this kind of dialogue to improve employee morale at the BBG, which is among the worst in the entire federal government. He has met personally with a number of employee groups. Speaking about the March meeting with the unions and contractors, Ashe said that it was difficult:

“We heard things we did not want to hear, but we heard things that we all agree we should hear. And I think that the result of it is that now a number of these issues are now on the table. It’s no longer hidden. It’s not in the closet. And we’re discussing them openly.”

Annette Lantos with her husband Congressman Tom Lantos

Ashe also paid tribute to Annette Lantos, a Holocaust survivor, whose recent plea in defense of Voice of America broadcasts to China, Tibet and Russia may have contributed to the BBG’s reversal of some of the broadcasting cuts. He recalled that in 2005 as U.S. Ambassador to Poland he accompanied the late Democratic Congressman Tom Lantos and his wife Annette Lantos when they visited the site of the former Nazi death camp in Auschwitz to mark the 60th anniversary of the camp’s liberation.

Ashe also announced that Edward R. Murrow’s only son, Charles Casey Murrow, will participate in the the rededication ceremony at the BBG Edward R. Murrow Transmitting Station in Greenville, North Carolina, in honor of the renowned broadcaster and director of the USIA (1961-1964) and in recognition of World Press Freedom Day. Ashe and Congressman Walter Jones (R – NC) also plan to attend the event. The BBG and IBB executive staff wanted to close down the facility, but Ashe insisted that the only remaining shortwave transmitting station on U.S. territory remain open.

During the meeting in Miami, BBG governors also stressed the importance of U.S. broadcasting to Latin America, but it is not clear what they plan to do about their FY 2013 budget proposal to eliminate several positions in the Voice of America Spanish Service. There was no mention at the open meeting about the FY 2013 budget proposal to eliminate dozens of VOA newsroom and English broadcasting positions and cuts and reductions in other VOA programs, including VOA Georgian, Turkish, and Greek broadcasts.

The wife of the late Congressman Tom Lantos, with whom she had worked for many years on numerous human rights campaigns around the world, also pleads with the BBG to restore Voice of America broadcasting to Russia, which had been suspended in 2008 and only partially renewed.

The Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting welcomes Mrs. Lantos’ plea in support of U.S. international broadcasting to nations and groups suffering from human rights abuses. BBG members should pay attention to these words of a Holocaust survivor:

“The VOA broadcasts fanned the fires of resistance in the brave underground fighters who sought to destroy the brutal Nazi totalitarianism from within. To cut off the VOA broadcasts would have been to cut off the very legs of the resistance. The same is true today in nations ruled by totalitarian regimes.”

CUSIB believes that the proposed broadcasting cuts and firing of nearly 300 Voice of America and other BBG journalists and staffers will harm U.S. national security and the cause of human rights and freedom around the world. CUSIB also believes that the Broadcasting Board of Governors is making a mistake in cutting essential programs while maintaining and even increasing non-programming spending and outside contracting.

CUSIB joins Mrs. Lantos in her plea to the Broadcasting Board of Governors and hopes that President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and members of Congress from both parties will ask the BBG to change its course:

“I know that my late husband, Congressman Tom Lantos, would have fought to save the VOA Russian, Tibetan, and Cantonese Broadcast Services — to use all available means to deliver uncensored news, hope and encouragement to those seeking freedom. How could I do any less?”

The Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting (CUSIB) is an independent, nongovernmental organization which supports free flow of uncensored news from the United States to countries without free media.

Website: http://www.cusib.org

This press release was issued through 24-7PressRelease.com.  For further information, visit http://www.24-7pressrelease.com.

SOURCE Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting

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.

This word resonates sharply with what has been an ongoing activity by the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) in its efforts to decimate U.S. broadcasting to many countries of the world, among them Tibet and China. Anyone who has a modicum of interest or understanding of what it means to live under an oppressive regime would be appalled by the direction in which the BBG is taking the Voice of America.

The explanations given thus far that the Internet is a more useful tool for addressing America’s public diplomacy are lacking in truth and common sense. Everyone knows that totalitarian regimes and their leaders are aggressive players in boycotting and in censorship of any Western influence or talk of freedom, human rights, living and breathing with dignity.

In spite of Congressional budget allotments for specific broadcasting, the BBG has acted in direct opposition to what Congress has dictated that must be done.

It would seem that the Executives leading the BBG do not agree with what Congress stipulates and are actively pursuing their own inexplicable agenda, which is even more worrisome. It appears that advancing the humanitarian goals of American public diplomacy abroad is not required by those in charge of the BBG. They are quite content to throw billions of people under the bus, deny them access to news from America and prevent them from learning that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights also applies to those souls who live under repressive and communist regimes.

With the advent of a new President in 2008, the activity and misdirection by the BBG has multiplied and moved quickly in spite of what Congress has said and done. They are behaving like autocrats themselves and influencing the editorial of direction of the Voice of America. They are exercising judgement that lacks humanity or compassion for the unfortunate people around the world who yearn to listen to VOA.

President Obama has shown his disdain for the relevancy of the three branches of government. The BBG executives are acting in the same manner and obviously are taking lessons from their patron. How disheartening for all those selfless persons who for seventy years made a huge difference in the lives of billions around the world. A bunch of highly paid wonks want to destroy the bedrock of American public diplomacy around the world to people who really need to hear its message of freedom and hope.

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.

On its Facebook page, Save VOA Tibetan Radio states that stopping the Voice of America’s Tibetan Language Radio would be wrong for the following reasons:

1. Wrong political message to the Chinese Communist Party.

2. VOA Tibetan language radio is a unique source of information for Tibetans.

3. Shortwave radio is still a powerful medium in Tibet.

Tibet’s spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, once noted that, “Tibetans call VOA broadcasts their medicine for depression and exhaustion, and on days that they don’t get to hear it, they say they’ve missed their vital medicine.”

As reported for National Public Radio (NPR) by Louisa Lim, “Protests, Self-Immolation Signs Of A Desperate Tibet,” “The [Buddhist] monks [in Tibet] listen secretly to Voice of America’s Tibetan service news every night, despite feeling almost physical pain at the bleak news.”

Save VOA Tibetan Radio asks supporters to tell their congressmen that they strongly oppose elimination of VOA Tibetan radio and provides a sample letter:

Name of Rep.
Address
Date:

Honorable

We have learnt that the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) has proposed to eliminate the entire radio broadcast segment of the Voice of America’s Tibetan service, in the 2013 budget proposal. At a time when Tibet is under severe repression, access to information from the free world is all the more vital. Therefore, the US administration and its subsidiary BBG’s proposal to silence the voice of Tibetans through its proposed elimination of VOA’s Tibetan radio program is, not only contrary to the goals and objectives of VOA’s existence, but unfathomable in justification.

As the first truly independent Tibetan radio news service, established by an act of Congress in 1990, VOA Tibetan service through the variety of its program, objectivity, professionalism and news dissemination capability, has not only deservedly earned the reputation for its reliability but has established one of the largest audience base both inside and outside Tibet. BBG’s proposal to eliminate the VOA Tibetan radio not only cuts Tibetan access to news and information from within and outside Tibet but helps Chinese authorities accomplish their aim of controlling free flow of communication and information.

Eliminating the Voice of America Tibetan radio broadcast to Tibet sends a wrong message to the Chinese government that their continuing abuse of human rights, repressive and restrictive Tibet policies are acceptable.
For Tibetans and all those who value human rights, freedom and democracy, BBG’s proposal to eliminate VOA Tibetan radio broadcast is very unfortunate and most troubling. VOA Tibetan radio is a lifeline for the Tibetans inside Tibet and a pride and prestige of the United States.

We request you to please use all your influence to stop eliminating VOA Tibetan radio broadcast into Tibet. We cannot afford to abandon the desperate Tibetans in Tibet at this critical time.

We thank you for your attention to this matter,

Sincerely,

Your name
Address

The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) proposal to cut Voice of America radio to Tibet is part of unprecedented cuts and reductions affecting also many other VOA broadcasting services while the BBG expands the number of bureaucratic jobs in its main administrative element, the International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB).

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 Board (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

Tibetan spiritual leader Dalai Lama congratulates the Voice of America (VOA) on its 70th anniversary, but the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) and the Obama Administration plan to eliminate VOA radio broadcasts to Tibet.

As the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) plans to eliminate and reduce numerous Voice of America (VOA) broadcasting services as part of the Obama Administration proposed budget for fiscal year 2013, VOA celebrated 70 years of broadcasting this year, and marked this milestone on Wednesday, March 7th, with a special event at VOA headquarters in Washington, DC. High points of the afternoon included video tributes from President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Burmese pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, and the Dalai Lama.

One of the services the Broadcasting Board of Governors wants to eliminate are Voice of America Tibetan radio broadcasts. Ambassador Victor Ashe is the only BBG member who publicly spoke up against cutting VOA radio programs to Tibet, but sources tell us that other Board members are now also questioning their staff’s recommendation and the Board’s budget decision on Tibet. The BBG also wants to eliminate the VOA Cantonese Service and to reduce VOA broadcasting to Vietnam, Laos and other countries without free media while preserving its administrative and bureaucratic overhead. The BBG also proposes large cuts in English and Spanish programs and broadcasting jobs.

Critics of the Broadcasting Board of Governors are pointing out that BBG members have allowed their staff to expand bureaucratic positions at the International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB) run by President Obama’s friend Richard Lobo while cutting Voice of America broadcasts and positions of VOA broadcasters and journalists. In a letter to U.S. Congress, one critic wrote:

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 Board (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 Obama VOA 70th Anniversary Video

Link to Clinton VOA 70th Anniversary Video

Link to Dalai Lama VOA 70th Anniversary Video

Link to Aung San Suu Kyi VOA 70th Anniversary Video

See more here:
Xi Jinping – an unlikely Gorbachev?

Snapshot of a VOA Russian Service blog under porn attack.

One can make a very good argument that going all web and eliminating Voice of America (VOA) Russian radio and TV broadcasts by the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) contributed to the fake interview with the Russian opposition figure by the VOA Russian Service. Whistleblower lawyer, blogger and opposition leader Alexei Navalny said he never granted an interview which the Voice of America posted on its Russian website.

One of the worst management teams in the federal government, which now runs VOA through the International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB) on behalf of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, is primarily responsible for the policies that have resulted in this journalistic fiasco. The blame is shared by the BBG members, IBB director Richard Lobo, and the managers he kept and promoted. Lobo is viewed as an absent manager, as are the members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. The organization is run by a group of permanent managers whom most employees view as lacking leadership and management knowledge. They have rated them as the worst managers in the federal government.

Of course, these managers will try to put the blame on some poor contract employee whom they have not checked out, whom they shamelessly exploit, and whom they have not trained. These government officials and executives should accept the full blame themselves. BBG Watch reported on the incident.

Russian opposition blogger Navalny says Voice of America interview with him is fake

Broadcasting, especially radio, needs serious and experienced journalists. It is not easy to fake an audio interview for radio or a television interview. The BBG ended VOA Russian radio and TV in 2008. Experienced journalists either retired or were pushed out. Contractors without much experience and training were hired. They are paid peanuts and are shamelessly exploited. Some are not paid on time. No serious security clearances on them are performed. Many have just arrived from Russia and others live in Russia with their families. What a wonderful opportunity for Putin’s security services to cause mischief.

These former KGB (Putin was one of them) now FSB types have already released a fake photo of the Russian opposition figure with whom VOA published a fake interview. The VOA Russian website has been compromised before and will be compromised again if the BBG doesn’t get its house in order.

All VOA websites were completely hacked and went dark during President Obama’s official visit to Russia and pornographic photo was posted another time on the VOA Russian website. A bogus news item was also posted. Now we have a fake interview with a major Russian pro-democratic opposition figure. What kind of message does it send from the United States to those in Russia struggling for freedom and democracy? Are people in charge of U.S. international broadcasting serious or is this amateur hour?

BBG members should really read this Heritage Foundation blog post: “With VOA Left Voiceless, Obama Fails to Reach Russian Public.” It could tell them something what is wrong with their Internet-only program delivery strategy, their “platform agnostic” strategy. If you want to be agnostic, you better be damn sure there are no KGB gods lurking around the Internet.

The IBB/BBG executive staff and its policies of undermining broadcasting and serious journalism are responsible for all of this. They don’t understand who they are dealing with — former KGB now FSB thugs.

What do they think will happen to VOA websites if there is a real crisis in U.S-Russian relations or an anti-Putin revolution in Russia? Do they know how many readers’ comments on the VOA websites are posted by agents of the Russian security services engaged in psychological operations? Do they have any idea how many of their contractors in Russia have been contacted and intimidated by the secret police? They wanted to go all web with VOA to China but thankfully Democrats and Republicans in Congress stopped them.

What do these Broadcasting Board of Governors executives think the Voice of America Chinese website will look like once the Chinese regime hackers are finished with it if there is a crisis? Eliminate VOA broadcasts, fire 45 experienced VOA Chinese journalists — which is what these BBG managers wanted to do — and what you may get is a fake interview with a leading Chinese dissident and Nobel Peace prize winner Liu Xiaobo.

The leaders of IBB/BBG, Director Lobo, VOA Director David Ensor and above all the presidentially-appointed members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors need to ask themselves this question: can we trust our management team who advised us to adopt the policies that led to the fake VOA interview with Russian whistleblower lawyer, blogger and opposition leader Alexei Navalny? The answer is “No.”

Snapshot of a VOA Russian Service blog under porn attack.

One can make a very good argument that going all web and eliminating Voice of America (VOA) Russian radio and TV broadcasts by the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) contributed to the fake interview with the Russian opposition figure by the VOA Russian Service. Whistleblower lawyer, blogger and opposition leader Alexei Navalny said he never granted an interview which the Voice of America posted on its Russian website.

One of the worst management teams in the federal government, which now runs VOA through the International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB) on behalf of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, is primarily responsible for the policies that have resulted in this journalistic fiasco. The blame is shared by the BBG members, IBB director Richard Lobo, and the managers he kept and promoted. Lobo is viewed as an absent manager, as are the members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. The organization is run by a group of permanent managers whom most employees view as lacking leadership and management knowledge. They have rated them as the worst managers in the federal government.

Of course, these managers will try to put the blame on some poor contract employee whom they have not checked out, whom they shamelessly exploit, and whom they have not trained. These government officials and executives should accept the full blame themselves. BBG Watch reported on the incident.

Russian opposition blogger Navalny says Voice of America interview with him is fake

Broadcasting, especially radio, needs serious and experienced journalists. It is not easy to fake an audio interview for radio or a television interview. The BBG ended VOA Russian radio and TV in 2008. Experienced journalists either retired or were pushed out. Contractors without much experience and training were hired. They are paid peanuts and are shamelessly exploited. Some are not paid on time. No serious security clearances on them are performed. Many have just arrived from Russia and others live in Russia with their families. What a wonderful opportunity for Putin’s security services to cause mischief.

These former KGB (Putin was one of them) now FSB types have already released a fake photo of the Russian opposition figure with whom VOA published a fake interview. The VOA Russian website has been compromised before and will be compromised again if the BBG doesn’t get its house in order.

All VOA websites were completely hacked and went dark during President Obama’s official visit to Russia and pornographic photo was posted another time on the VOA Russian website. A bogus news item was also posted. Now we have a fake interview with a major Russian pro-democratic opposition figure. What kind of message does it send from the United States to those in Russia struggling for freedom and democracy? Are people in charge of U.S. international broadcasting serious or is this amateur hour?

BBG members should really read this Heritage Foundation blog post: “With VOA Left Voiceless, Obama Fails to Reach Russian Public.” It could tell them something what is wrong with their Internet-only program delivery strategy, their “platform agnostic” strategy. If you want to be agnostic, you better be damn sure there are no KGB gods lurking around the Internet.

The IBB/BBG executive staff and its policies of undermining broadcasting and serious journalism are responsible for all of this. They don’t understand who they are dealing with — former KGB now FSB thugs.

What do they think will happen to VOA websites if there is a real crisis in U.S-Russian relations or an anti-Putin revolution in Russia? Do they know how many readers’ comments on the VOA websites are posted by agents of the Russian security services engaged in psychological operations? Do they have any idea how many of their contractors in Russia have been contacted and intimidated by the secret police? They wanted to go all web with VOA to China but thankfully Democrats and Republicans in Congress stopped them.

What do these Broadcasting Board of Governors executives think the Voice of America Chinese website will look like once the Chinese regime hackers are finished with it if there is a crisis? Eliminate VOA broadcasts, fire 45 experienced VOA Chinese journalists — which is what these BBG managers wanted to do — and what you may get is a fake interview with a leading Chinese dissident and Nobel Peace prize winner Liu Xiaobo.

The leaders of IBB/BBG, Director Lobo, VOA Director David Ensor and above all the presidentially-appointed members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors need to ask themselves this question: can we trust our management team who advised us to adopt the policies that led to the fake VOA interview with Russian whistleblower lawyer, blogger and opposition leader Alexei Navalny? The answer is “No.”

Last week, President Obama signed into law a bill that expands sanctions against Belarus, whose authoritarian leader Aleksandr Lukashenko continues to imprison his opponents and critics. Lukashenko unleashed the latest crackdown hours after the flawed December 2010 presidential vote, which declared him winner of a fourth term. Repression in Belarus is ongoing. Last week, authorities further tightened their grip on the media by restricting access to blacklisted websites. On Monday, a district court in Minsk jailed an independent reporter for filming a one-man protest vigil in front of the KGB headquarters.

See the article here:
Blog: What US can’t accept in Belarus, it supports in Uzbekistan

Read more:
Havel’s moral leadership remains a beacon, Obama tells memorial tribute

[Update: A comment posted by someone claiming close knowledge of the BBG staff charges that BBG Watch sources are wrong and that neither Mr. Trimble, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Lobo nor even the current members of the BBG had anything to do with the plan to end VOA broadcasts to China, which the current Board did submit to Congress and vigorously defended. (BBG Watch has received a copy of a lengthy memo sent to Congress by one of the current BBG members who strongly defends the decision to end VOA broadcasts to China and cites research and analysis from the BBG staff.) The author of the comment to this story, however, puts the entire blame on former VOA Director Dan Austin and one other VOA manager and claims that the BBG staff, presumably that includes Mr. Trimble and Mr. Sherman, had opposed this plan. BBG Watch sources tell a different story and point out that the same two individuals were also responsible for arguing in favor of ending VOA radio and TV broadcasts to Russia in 2008 and for supporting eliminations or reductions in other broadcasting services to countries without free media. BBG Watch sources do concede, however, that former VOA Director Austin did support the China plan.]

[Correction from IBB Director Lobo: BBG Watch has learned that IBB Director Richard Lobo has corrected a mistake in his memo. Paul Kollmer-Dorsey does not have the tile of General Counsel. He is Deputy General Counsel. The General Counsel position has been vacant for some time.]

Jeff Trimble

Sources describe Sherman and Trimble as being primarily responsible for formulating the plan to end VOA broadcasts to China. The plan had generated strong bipartisan opposition in Congress, which forced the BBG to give up its intention to end VOA radio and TV broadcasts in Mandarin and Cantonese and to fire 45 VOA Chinese Branch journalists, most of whom specialize in human rights reporting.

According to BBG Watch sources, Trimble and Sherman are protected by the BBG Chairman Walter Isaacson who wants to de-federalize VOA and Radio and TV Marti and to limit the independence of the BBG-managed surrogate broadcasters: the Middle East Broadcasting Networks (Alhurra TV and Radio Sawa), Radio Free Asia (RFA) and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL). Lobo had been appointed to his position by President Obama.

BBG Watch sources describe Trimble and Sherman as the chief authors of the BBG strategic plan which calls for these changes. One source told BBG Watch that not all BBG members supported Sherman’s promotion. BBG Governor Victor Ashe, who has become an outspoken critic of the BBG/IBB management team, was — according to BBG Watch sources — opposed to rewarding Sherman and Trimble with these new positions.

Steven Korn

BBG Watch has also received reliable information that the heads of the Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN) and of Radio Free Asia (RFA), Brian Conniff and Libby Liu, have raised serious reservations about the Sherman-Trimble plan to merge MBN and RFA together with RFE/RL into a large corporate bureaucracy. Critics of the BBG strategic plan point out that the main feature that makes these surrogate broadcasters successful is their administrative and editorial independence, while the BBG strategic plan calls for administrative and editorial centralization and creating a BBG global news network.

The head of RFE/RL Steven Korn, an old friend of Walter Isaacson (they both worked at CNN), is described as the only one supporting the merger without any objections. Sources tell us that Korn has been making controversial personnel changes at RFE/RL designed to protect careers of his favorite subordinates after the proposed merger.

###

From an official IBB announcement:

From: IBB Notices Administration [notices@bbg.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 5:58 PM
To: IBB Staff
Subject: Message from the IBB Director

Colleagues:

The merger of the IBB and BBG staffs will become effective on January 15, 2012.
This action reflects the Board’s commitment to streamline and increase the efficiency of agency operations, as called for in the newly adopted 2012-2016 Strategic Plan. The merger will facilitate the development of BBG-wide strategies and objectives, strengthen oversight of program and organizational performance, and enhance collaboration among our Federal and non-Federal entities.

An organizational chart showing the restructured, merged IBB/BBG operation is attached. Here are the key changes:

A new Office of Strategy and Development will lead development and implementation of strategy through coordinated planning, agency-level audience research and impact assessment, program placement, development, and international media training. The Office will work with the broadcast services to align strategy at the Agency and language service levels as well as across entities to enhance performance and meet the goals set by the Strategic Plan. It will incorporate the former BBG Office of Strategic Planning and Performance Measurement, the IBB Office of Marketing and Program Placement, and VOA Business Development. Bruce Sherman will serve as director.

The Office of Performance Review takes on enhanced responsibilities under the continued leadership of Kelu Chao. The Office will continue to conduct VOA and OCB language service research and programming reviews. It will now also be responsible for conducting management analyses of the operational effectiveness of all BBG elements and for coordinating inspections and reviews by the Office of Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office. The Office, together with the performance review elements of the non-Federal entities, will also provide feedback to help shape strategy.

The Office of Communications and External Relations is responsible for communications and outreach activities for the Board and will serve as the Board’s chief advisor for Congressional and external relations. The Office also coordinates communications operations of the BBG’s media networks — VOA, RFE, RFA, MBN, and OCB. The Graphics Unit, under the continued supervision of Tuleda Johnson, will move from the Marketing and Program Placement office to the Communications office. The position of Director of the Office of Communications and External Relations was recently advertised, and I hope shortly to be able to announce the selection of the Director of this office.

The Office of New Media has been renamed the Office of Digital and Design Innovation to better reflect its role in the development and implementation of innovative projects, programs, and services across U.S. international media. The Office will continue to play a key role in expanding the use of the best core technology platforms, as well as assisting entities in executing global digital and brand strategies, but also build out the next generation of digital products that present our content in an increasingly complex media landscape. Rob Bole continues as the Director of this Office.

A Board Operations Staff will be formalized under the direction of the Board Secretary and General Counsel, Paul Kollmer-Dorsey, and will continue to support the Board in its meetings and other operations.

The Secretariat staff and the Analysis and Administration Division will be combined as the Administrative and Secretariat Operations Unit. The Unit will coordinate the development, approval and codification of Agency administrative policies in the form of the Broadcasting Administrative Manual and provide Secretariat services to the BBG, along with the Division’s current functions. Doris Garay-Nellius will head this Unit.

I have designated Jeff Trimble as IBB Deputy Director. Jeff will assist me in overseeing IBB operations, and will carry out special projects at my direction, including the ongoing work to create a BBG global news network, a core element of the new Strategic Plan.

While this merger is a significant step, it is only a part of an ongoing, longer-term restructuring process. In coming months we will continue to study and evaluate this new organization, with an eye toward making further changes to achieve greater efficiencies and otherwise improve our performance. I look forward to your continued cooperation and assistance as we move forward.

Regards,

Dick Lobo
IBB Director

New BBG Organizational Chart

More:
Inherent limits to China’s soft power: Let 100 flowers bloom but …………

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 Broadcasting Board of Governors and the Destruction of US International Broadcasting

by The Federalist

Let’s get right down to the nitty-gritty:

Every member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) should submit his/her resignation to the White House. That should be followed by the resignation of the head of the Voice of America (VOA). If they don’t voluntarily submit their resignations, they should be demanded by the White House. The reason: they have destroyed US credibility abroad. They have unilaterally abandoned major radio audiences (the Russians) and are prepared to abandon the granddaddy of all audiences, the Chinese. Eventually, the BBG intends to abandon all of its international radio broadcasts. When that happens, the US Government will no longer be in the business of international broadcasting. There will no longer be a need for a BBG because it will have destroyed its most important strategic infrastructure and resource in reaching public audiences worldwide: direct global radio broadcasting.

The VOA Charter states, in relevant part:

“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…”

Clearly, the BBG is not in compliance with key provisions of the VOA Charter. The BBG is intentionally abandoning radio as the primary foundation base of communicating with world populations. The BBG has abandoned its Russian radio audience. The BBG has abandoned shortwave radio audiences in Indonesia and Vietnam. The BBG is prepared to abandon its enormous Chinese audiences. Other services have also been targeted. The intentions of the BBG are clear: it intends to thoroughly and completely shut down its radio operations.

Further, the BBG cannot claim to be in compliance with the provision that the VOA be “a consistently reliable and authoritative source of news…” VOA operations are now consistently unreliable. It is abandoning its radio audiences as quickly as possible. It has adopted a destructive “strategic plan” which relies upon the Internet as a sole source platform for audio, video and text…knowing (or worse, ignoring) that the Internet can be controlled and access to VOA websites blocked or hacked.

No doubt, the BBG would protest vehemently and try to point out otherwise, through semantic trickery and disingenuous, if not flatly erroneous statements bordering on deceit. But the facts speak otherwise.

The exit out the door of the Cohen Building doesn’t stop with the BBG members and the VOA director. Right behind them should follow the head of broadcasting to the Middle East and the staff of the International Broadcasting Bureau responsible for concocting the witch’s brew known as the “strategic plan.”

By its intended outcomes and the actions, past, current and future, this plan and those who vigorously advocate it are not operating in the National and Public Interest, have been destructive of those interests and have wasted millions of taxpayer dollars on failure…failure that is abject and complete.

The key components of the strategic failure are as follows:

Russia:

In 2008, the BBG unilaterally ended direct radio broadcasts to the Russian Federation by the VOA Russian Service. The service was reduced to an Internet-only capacity. At the time, as senior agency official stated that all of VOA would be like the Russian Service in five years.

Within weeks of this unilateral capitulation by the BBG, Russian forces invaded the Georgian Republic. As part of the campaign, the Russians engaged in cyber countermeasures to block or hack into Georgian and international websites.

The agency’s own research shows that the VOA Russian Service lost virtually all of its audience…upwards of 80%. Hits on the website are most often one-time-only, some on redirects and then the user leaves the site.

In the words of VOA Director Danforth Austin, the VOA Russian Service is an Internet “success.” Indeed, Austin is correct…it is a successful demolition of a service to a country without a free press. It is a “success” in enhancing the ability of the Russian government to control or block access to websites that do not comport with the interests of the Russian government.

The Arab and Muslim World:

For almost a decade, the BBG has taken millions of taxpayer dollars in a failed attempt to establish a meaningful presence in the Arab and Muslim world. It has failed miserably, as recent events in the Middle East have demonstrated.

Far and away the leader in reflecting and giving resonance to Arab and Muslim public sentiment is al-Jazeera television which broadcasts in both Arabic and English. One thing is clear from the unrest in the Arab and Muslim world: populations are fed up with regimes many of which have been supported by the United States. These populations are engaged in self-determination. The pro-democracy mantra is misplaced. Indeed, Senator John Kerry has remarked that it is too early to do a pro-democracy victory lap in the Middle East. Now, the United States government must prepare for an inevitable change in the wind. It is likely that the new governments to be formed will be less secular and more theocratic. In short, Arab publics are engaged in self-determination based on their traditional and historical values. This does not translate into identifying with US interests or values. The situation for the United States has become immediately more complex.

Add to this the success enjoyed by the Iranian government in projecting its power and influence in the region, most notably in Lebanon where Hezbollah is essentially in control of the national government and is armed to the teeth not only to protect its political gains but also to square off with the state of Israel, which it fought to a standstill in 2006. Iranian dissidents have been agitating for change for years, without much success. Even if these dissidents forced a political change in government, the still unanswered question is how that translates into dealing with the country’s theocracy. Further, even if Iranian dissidents force a change in government, this does not necessarily translate into the abandonment of the Iranian nuclear program. Iranians know that this program gives Iran an enormous amount of political leverage. The Iranians are not about to dispose of that leverage easily.

In short, the BBG effort has had no effect on Arab and Muslim sentiment. It is a failure. It is a waste of taxpayer dollars. The BBG is so far behind the public opinion curve in the Middle East that it will take more decades and taxpayer money to try to have some meaningful resonance. On the current trajectory of Middle East political developments, the chances of recovering the US image in the Middle East through the BBG are slim to none and will haunt US policy in the regions for decades.

China

In late February 2011, VOA director Austin and other officials held a “town hall meeting” to rationalize with agency employees the cuts the BBG intended to make to VOA China Branch Mandarin and Cantonese broadcasts, which would ironically take place on October 1, a national political holiday in the Peoples Republic of China (PRC).

This intended outcome highlights all of the ineptitude, incompetence and idiocy of the BBG “strategic plan.”

The BBG, through the VOA Director, justify this decision on a whole lot of suspect reasoning. According to Austin, the agency wants to go after “new” media…the Internet users in China. There is only one “small” problem with this: the Chinese government knows that it can control Internet website access. It can, does and will continue to block sites that it considers detrimental to Chinese national interests. The Chinese have already demonstrated its capability in this regard. The PRC government blocked outside news reporting on the unrest in the Middle East. That effort was not limited to the Internet but across all media platforms.

As large as the Chinese Internet audience may be, the BBG will not have access to that market. The cost to the Chinese government is next to nothing. The government controls all the in-country Internet service providers.

From the Chinese perspective, this unilateral decision is a gift. The BBG, an agency of the US Government is unilaterally narrowing its footprint inside China. It is funneling its program output into a medium that the Chinese government controls and will continue to control for the foreseeable future.

The Chinese are not being stupid about this. They know their Internet users. They know the content that is attractive to them and allows access to those sites that have commercial, entertainment and other non-political interests. This is about control, not about across-the-board blockage.

The other skillfulness in this approach is that, after a fashion, what the government provides ultimately outweighs what it blocks. With the passage of time, this renders the VOA program output irrelevant.

Danforth Austin suggested that the Chinese government would want the BBG to continue to do shortwave radio broadcasting. In Austin’s view – and no doubt that of the BBG – this is a waste of money. They believe that radio is passé. This is just plain stupid. Radio is about as passé as the wheel…and no one is abandoning the wheel as a critical part of technology.

The fact of the matter is that the Chinese government spends large amounts of money to jam VOA Chinese shortwave radio programs. That means that VOA radio program content has a value placed not on what the US Government spends to transmit its broadcasts but how much the Chinese spend to block it.

Another fact: Chinese radio users far outnumber those with broadband Internet access. As one VOA staffer asked Austin: are you prepared to buy a computer for those Chinese who don’t own a computer? You could see Austin bristle at the question posed by the staffer.

Another specious argument offered by the BBG and Austin is that the Chinese would not block the Internet because they would suffer economically and in prestige.

Truthfully, it is painful is hear this delusional babble coming out of an agency charged with communicating with the rest of the world.

Here is the truth of the matter: the Chinese are riding the crest of a wave of an economic juggernaut which has yet to reach maximum effectiveness. This juggernaut, which is worldwide in scope, shows no signs of negative backlash from its blocking of US government websites. Globalized economies want access to Chinese goods. Globalized businesses want access to Chinese labor which reduces their costs. Advantage: PRC.

Further, the PRC owns a huge amount of US debt. No one should operate under the delusion that blocking US government websites is somehow going to have significant impact on the leverage the Chinese government has.

Lastly, as VOA Chinese staffers pointed out, the BBG spends $8-million dollars on its transmission costs. By comparison, the Chinese government spends $8-billion dollars on its overseas media campaign. This includes advertising in the Verizon Center in Washington, DC and Times Square in New York City. It includes a robust radio broadcasting effort in English to North America. It includes inserts in major American newspapers including the Washington Post.

The Chinese government has been quick to comment on its victory over the hapless and inept BBG. Through its official media, it has proclaimed the BBG action as a retreat and defeat, a mission abandoned and unfinished.

The Chinese are right.

More on the Cyber Front

One of the more ludicrous pronouncements from the BBG comes via one of its public relations flaks who stated in a press release that the BBG was a “leader” in cyber security and countermeasures.

The blatant idiocy of this remark was made clear when BBG/VOA websites were recently hacked by the “Iranian Cyber Army,” an operation with apparent links to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. This attack took down all VOA websites and proxies for five hours. Repeat: all VOA websites and proxies for five hours. The attack occurred a few days before the BBG town hall meeting.

The BBG response was a reflection of its naivety in the cyber environment, complaining about infringement on freedom of the press and similar blah, blah, blah that means absolutely nothing to those opposed to US interests. After indulging in this rant, the statement followed by saying that the attack did not penetrate deeper into the agency’s IT infrastructure.

Not this time.

No doubt, the Iranians will study its successes and make efforts to expand and improve upon them. The next attack may be longer. The next attack may indeed penetrate deeper into the IT infrastructure disrupting perhaps actual on-air programs as well as websites. Clearly, the BBG does not have effective measures in place to prevent such attacks or similar ones in the future.

This is important to note when it comes to the Chinese. The BBG needs to be reminded that the Chinese government has the equivalent of unlimited resources and it will expend those resources to protect its national interests. For example, the PRC could match the BBG employee-for-employee in a cyber warfare operation and double it and not break a sweat. Even VOA director Austin noted that the Chinese are very focused on their goals. Apparently, the VOA director isn’t listening to what he’s saying and the import behind it. The Chinese government means business. They are not coy about it. They will tell the US government exactly what it will do to protect its interests.

On the Political Front

On Wednesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton offered testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In her testimony, the secretary noted that the United States is losing in the court of world opinion. Using the often-expressed “war” analogy, Secretary Clinton said, “We are in an information war and we are losing that war.” She also noted that “Most people still get their news from TV and radio.”

Secretary Clinton is right on both counts. Unfortunately, the BBG – which the State Department oversees – is committed to abandoning radio both immediately and in the long term in favor of the Internet. Well over 70 percent of the world population does not have Internet access. That 70 percent is a bountiful resource for organizations that hate the United States. Out of these impoverished and oppressed peoples come recruits for terrorist organizations and operations.

Senator Richard Lugar asked Secretary Clinton about a more assertive role for the BBG. While Secretary Clinton’s response was not fleshed out in press accounts, there is a message for the secretary and for Senator Lugar in the BBG town hall meeting. From that meeting it is evident that the BBG intends to press forward in abandoning world publics and narrowing the US government information footprint around the world. Channeling more funding toward the BBG will be money wasted on an already bankrupt “strategic plan” that cripples access to mass audiences and goes after audiences that are and will continue to be effectively blocked.

Mrs. Clinton also noted that the major player in the Middle East is al-Jazeera television. Thanks to the arrogance and mismanagement perpetrated by the BBG, other major players are already on the rise in Russia and China which have mounted robust international media programs.

We have become the world’s big time loser in news and information. We have allowed US international prestige and credibility to be undermined and our national interests compromised. For that reason, as the direct consequence of the BBG’s decisions, the Board should be held accountable and be given the heave-ho, along with the IBB and VOA management that has supported the Board’s actions and shares in its culpability.

The Federalist
March 2011

Sign a petition on http://voashortwave.org

Join Save Voice of America Radio to China Groupon Facebook

View Voice of America Chinese Branch journalists protesting the Broadcasting Board of Governors’ decision to end VOA on-the-air radio programs to China in Mandarin and Cantonese.

A few days before the Islamist cyber attack on the Voice of America websites, Blanquita Cullum, a conservative radio host and former member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), criticized the Obama Administration for planning to drastically reduce American radio news programs to China in favor of Internet-only news delivery to China by the Voice of America. Ms. Cullum wrote in an op-ed published by The Washington Times that by terminating long-distance shortwave transmissions, the government agency in charge of U.S. international news broadcasts is ignoring the digital divide between richer and poorer regions of the world and dismissing efforts by authoritarian regimes to censor the Internet. She charged that the BBG appears more intent on communicating with rulers rather than with the ordinary people who can’t afford or are denied access to the Internet.

Voice of America Chinese Service

The radio broadcasts set for termination are produced by the Voice of America and Radio Free Asia (RFA). They are funded by Congressional appropriations and overseen by the bipartisan Broadcasting Board of Governors, a nominally independent federal agency which is consistently rated in official government-wide employee surveys as one of the worst-managed within the U.S. government. The Broadcasting Board of Governors is in charge of all U.S. civilian international news broadcasting, including the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia (RFA), Radio and TV Martí, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN)—Radio Sawa and Alhurra Television.

Conservative radio host and former Broadcasting Board of Governors member Blanquita Cullum has been critical of the BBG's decision to reduce U.S.-funded radio broadcasts to China and other countries without free media.

In her Washington Times commentary, Obama bows to Chinese dictators, Blanquita Cullum, who had served on the Broadcasting Board of Governors during the George W. Bush Administration, has accused the current Board members and the Obama Administration of planning to cut off outside news to people still oppressed by communism. According to her and other critics of the planned termination of U.S. government-funded radio broadcasts in Mandarin and Cantonese, the President’s budget request of $767 million for the BBG for Fiscal Year 2012, represents a “strategic disintegration plan” – marking America’s exit as a bona fide force in international broadcasting.

The current BBG has nine members, all of whom have been appointed by President Obama. The Board also has the executive staff, whose top managers have been responsible for a number of financial scandals and journalistic blunders. While the BBG members were replaced after the new administration took office, the executive staff remained. They are the initiators and planners of the previous and the latest series of radio programming cuts in U.S. international broadcasting.

The current BBG Chairman Walter Isaacson is the former Chairman and CEO of CNN and former editor of Time Magazine. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton serves as an ex officio member of the BBG. The Board also has Republican members, including Dana Perino, the former White House Press Secretary to President George W. Bush, and Victor H. Ashe, the former U.S. Ambassador to Poland during the George W. Bush Administration. They were all nominated by President Obama and confirmed by the Senate.

Blanquita Cullum, the only former BBG member recognized in the Congressional Record for being “a champion of the mission of U.S. international broadcasting,” argues in her op-ed column in The Washington Times that the BBG’s over-reliance on delivering news from the United States to countries without free media, using the Internet rather than a mix of radio, Internet and satellite TV, is both misguided and dangerous. She points out that “it is easier and cheaper for despots to shut down the Internet than it is to jam radio,” and accuses the BBG of “ignoring the digital divide – the gap between those who have effective Internet access and those who don’t.” According to AHumanRight.org, an NGO which strives to expand free access to news and information around the world, 7 out of 10 people do not have Internet access. AHumanRight.org estimates that almost 5 billion people lack Internet access.

Blanquita Cullum had been a strong critic of the BBG executive staff while she was still serving as a Board member and managed to prevent some but not all of the previously proposed broadcasting cuts. Other BBG members and their staff wanted to use savings from some of these programming cuts to hire their friends as public relations consultants for the BBG. Her fight against mismanagement at the BBG was recognized by Senator Tom Coburn, Republican from Oklahoma, in a statement placed in The Congressional Record.

“Chief among her concerns,” Senator Coburn wrote, “has been for the continuation of U.S. international radio broadcasts, the form of communication which to this day remains the most readily accessible and cost-effective means of communication for billions of oppressed people living in poverty.”

Senator Coburn has been a consistent critic of the way the BBG manages its broadcasting operations and spends public funds.
He has publicized examples of VOA broadcasts to Iran which, he charges, undermine U.S. policy and give a platform for anti-American propaganda. He has also charged that U.S. broadcasts in Arabic on Radio Sawa and Alhurra Television have also given “uninterrupted and unchallenged platforms to terrorists and other enemies of the U.S. and our allies.”

One of the most blatant examples of editorial mismanagement at the BGG, exposed with the help of Free Media Online, was the airing of statements by Holocaust deniers by Alhurra Television.

While the BBG members approve strategic plans and budget submissions to Congress, the recommendations for program cuts come from the permanent BBG executive staff. They were responsible in the past for proposing to reduce radio broadcasts to Tibet, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Ukraine and the Republic of Georgia. They have also been accused of failing to maintain editorial standards, which led to such journalistic blunders as the airing of statements by Holocaust deniers on the BBG-managed Alhurra Television for the Middle East. They also failed to prevent major financial scandals at the BBG-managed broadcasting entities.

In one of their most controversial moves in recent years, the BBG executive staff had sold the previous BBG members on the idea of eliminating VOA radio broadcasts to Russia. In her commentary in The Washington Times, Ms. Cullum pointed out that after the BBG had ended VOA Russian radio programming in 2008 just several days before Russian military forces invaded the Republic of Georgia, subsequent survey data indicated that sole reliance upon a VOA Russian website resulted in a wholesale disintegration of its audience base. Ms. Cullum had opposed these programming cuts when she was still a member of the BBG.

Americans for U. S. International Broadcasting Petition Save Voice of America Shortwave

Americans for U.S. International Broadcasting, a group of current and former VOA and BBG employees and free media advocates, have started a petition drive to convince Congress to reject the BBG’s and the Obama Administration’s proposals for eliminating shortwave radio broadcasts to China.

Senator Richard Lugar

Some members of Congress and their staff are also concerned about media censorship in China and the Chinese government’s efforts to control Internet access in their country. Senator Richard Lugar, Republican from Indiana, issued a Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff report — “Another U.S. Deficit – China and America – Public Diplomacy in the Age of the Internet”– which details China’s initiatives to censor the Internet while expanding its influence in the world. The report was prepared under the direction of Senior Professional Staff Member Paul Foldi, who visited the region.

ANOTHER U.S. DEFICIT
—CHINA AND AMERICA—
PUBLIC DIPLOMACY IN THE
AGE OF THE INTERNET
A REPORT
TO THE MEMBERS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
FEBRUARY 15, 2011

XinhuaNews, the official press agency of the Chinese government, will soon be allowed to open a multi-floored office in Times Square and already broadcasts from an AM transmitter in Texas. By contrast, Beijing limits the Voice of America to a single, two-person office there, blocks the opening of a VOA bureau in Shanghai. Furthermore, China forces both VOA and Radio Free Asia to beam in on Short Wave radio from distant locations well outside its borders. China also routinely jams these transmissions as well as blocks both VOA’s and RFA’s Internet sites. Meanwhile, Congress has provided tens of millions of dollars to assist in Internet freedom issues including Internet Censorship Circumvention Technology, but little of that money has been allocated by the State Department in spite of clear bipartisan support.

VOA insiders told Free Media Online that the BBG executives who make decisions to eliminate radio broadcasts have no experience of living under communism and do not understand the psychology of authoritarian rulers and those who suffer under oppressive regimes.

The Taipei Times reports that the morale of the Voice of America Chinese Service journalists is at its all-time low.

According to sources at VOA, who spoke with The Taipei Times on the condition of protecting their anonymity, the work environment had turned sour as pressure from management led to on-air hosts self-censoring themselves.

One instance involved the invitation of World Uyghur Congress leader Rebeiya Kadeer for a show, which resulted in the show’s host being slapped on the wrist afterward for failing to invite a Chinese official to provide the other side of the story.

“The Chinese propaganda is already available for all to listen to,” the source said, adding that VOA did not need to serve as a platform for the views of the Chinese Communist Party and in many cases VOA served as one of the few means for minorities to voice their message out.

The source also said it was highly unlikely that Chinese officials invited to participate on a VOA show would have agreed to do so.

Eventually, employees discovered that the pressure from management, which on certain occasions resulted in self- censorship, was the direct result of a sustained campaign of complaints from Chinese diplomats.

“[Yielding to their pressure, and now shutting us down] sends the wrong strategic message to Beijing,” a source said, adding that regardless of whether Congress passed the budget cuts or not, “this should serve as a warning to management at VOA not to give up on human rights in China.”

The Voice of America Chinese Service journalist may very well be right that the BBG has been succumbing to the pressure from Chinese diplomats who complain to the State Department.

Chairman Walter Isaacson made news last October by naming China’s and Russia’s official media as America’s “enemies,” alongside state media in Iran and Venezuela, but he quickly disavowed his comments, most likely after being rebuked by high-ranking officials of the Obama Administration, either at the State Department or at the White House. He used such strong language while calling for more money for the BBG to combat foreign propaganda.

Mr. Isaacson criticized the state media in China and Russia at the 60th anniversary celebration for Radio Free Europe (RFE), which he credited with contributing to the end of the Cold War. [A transcript of the speech is available here.] When questioned by The Cable, a FOREIGN POLICY (FP) blog about his “enemies” comment, Isaacson apologized for the remark, while saying that the “enemies” he was referring to were in Afghanistan, not the several countries he mentioned.

“I of course did not mean to refer to, nor do I consider, that Russia, China, and the other countries or news services are enemies of the U.S., and I’m sorry if I gave that impression,” he told The Cable. The BBG has also published a statement of clarification on its website.

The incident showed that not even the BBG Chairman is protected from censorship by autocratic regimes. Their diplomats are putting pressure on the State Department, which under the Obama Administration seems far more willing to carry their message of censorship to the BBG Chairman and to get him to comply with their demands.

Ted Lipien, former Voice of America acting associate director and VOA journalist during several Democratic and Republican administration, said that President Obama’s refusal to meet prior to his official visit to Beijing with the Tibetan spiritual leader Dalai Lama has send a strong message to human rights activists and government censors alike in China and other countries ruled by authoritarian regimes. According to Lipien, the tone set by the Obama Administration has also contributed to self-censorship and unbalanced reporting at the Voice of America and other broadcasting entities managed by the BBG. An analysis conducted by Free Media Online showed that the Voice of America has violated its Congressional mandate in reporting on the ongoing debate in Congress about the new START treaty with Russia on arms reductions by heavily promoting the pro-treaty statements by the Obama Administration officials and almost completely ignoring serious objections to the proposed treaty raised by Republican lawmakers.

The Voice of America reporting on the U.S. debate about the proposed START treaty would make the Voice of Russia radio and Russia Today television proud, said Ted Lipien who now heads Free Media Online, a California-based NGO which supports free and independent media and reporting worldwide.

In 2008, Free Media Online launched GovoritAmerika.US, a Russian-language website which aggregates U.S. government and non-government media reports. The website was created in response to the Broadcasting Board of Governors’ decision to cancel VOA Russian radio broadcasts, an action taken just 12 days before the Russian military attack on the Republic of Georgia. Free Media Online has been highly critical of the BBG’s management of  U.S. international broadcasting, terminations of radio broadcasts, and over-reliance on the Internet without being able to protect its websites from cyber attacks.

Links to sign a petition to save U.S. news radio broadcasts to China.

This report was first published by FreeMediaOnline.orgTruckee, CA, USA, February 21, 2011.

A few days before the Islamist cyber attack on the Voice of America websites, Blanquita Cullum, a conservative radio host and former member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), criticized the Obama Administration for planning to drastically reduce American radio news programs to China in favor of Internet-only news delivery to China by the Voice of America. Ms. Cullum wrote in an op-ed published by The Washington Times that by terminating long-distance shortwave transmissions, the government agency in charge of U.S. international news broadcasts is ignoring the digital divide between richer and poorer regions of the world and dismissing efforts by authoritarian regimes to censor the Internet. She charged that the BBG appears more intent on communicating with rulers rather than with the ordinary people who can’t afford or are denied access to the Internet.

Voice of America Chinese Service

The radio broadcasts set for termination are produced by the Voice of America and Radio Free Asia (RFA). They are funded by Congressional appropriations and overseen by the bipartisan Broadcasting Board of Governors, a nominally independent federal agency which is consistently rated in official government-wide employee surveys as one of the worst-managed within the U.S. government. The Broadcasting Board of Governors is in charge of all U.S. civilian international news broadcasting, including the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia (RFA), Radio and TV Martí, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN)—Radio Sawa and Alhurra Television.

Conservative radio host and former Broadcasting Board of Governors member Blanquita Cullum has been critical of the BBG's decision to reduce U.S.-funded radio broadcasts to China and other countries without free media.

In her Washington Times commentary, Obama bows to Chinese dictators, Blanquita Cullum, who had served on the Broadcasting Board of Governors during the George W. Bush Administration, has accused the current Board members and the Obama Administration of planning to cut off outside news to people still oppressed by communism. According to her and other critics of the planned termination of U.S. government-funded radio broadcasts in Mandarin and Cantonese, the President’s budget request of $767 million for the BBG for Fiscal Year 2012, represents a “strategic disintegration plan” – marking America’s exit as a bona fide force in international broadcasting.

The current BBG has nine members, all of whom have been appointed by President Obama. The Board also has the executive staff, whose top managers have been responsible for a number of financial scandals and journalistic blunders. While the BBG members were replaced after the new administration took office, the executive staff remained. They are the initiators and planners of the previous and the latest series of radio programming cuts in U.S. international broadcasting.

The current BBG Chairman Walter Isaacson is the former Chairman and CEO of CNN and former editor of Time Magazine. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton serves as an ex officio member of the BBG. The Board also has Republican members, including Dana Perino, the former White House Press Secretary to President George W. Bush, and Victor H. Ashe, the former U.S. Ambassador to Poland during the George W. Bush Administration. They were all nominated by President Obama and confirmed by the Senate.

Blanquita Cullum, the only former BBG member recognized in the Congressional Record for being “a champion of the mission of U.S. international broadcasting,” argues in her op-ed column in The Washington Times that the BBG’s over-reliance on delivering news from the United States to countries without free media, using the Internet rather than a mix of radio, Internet and satellite TV, is both misguided and dangerous. She points out that “it is easier and cheaper for despots to shut down the Internet than it is to jam radio,” and accuses the BBG of “ignoring the digital divide – the gap between those who have effective Internet access and those who don’t.” According to AHumanRight.org, an NGO which strives to expand free access to news and information around the world, 7 out of 10 people do not have Internet access. AHumanRight.org estimates that almost 5 billion people lack Internet access.

Blanquita Cullum had been a strong critic of the BBG executive staff while she was still serving as a Board member and managed to prevent some but not all of the previously proposed broadcasting cuts. Other BBG members and their staff wanted to use savings from some of these programming cuts to hire their friends as public relations consultants for the BBG. Her fight against mismanagement at the BBG was recognized by Senator Tom Coburn, Republican from Oklahoma, in a statement placed in The Congressional Record.

“Chief among her concerns,” Senator Coburn wrote, “has been for the continuation of U.S. international radio broadcasts, the form of communication which to this day remains the most readily accessible and cost-effective means of communication for billions of oppressed people living in poverty.”

Senator Coburn has been a consistent critic of the way the BBG manages its broadcasting operations and spends public funds.
He has publicized examples of VOA broadcasts to Iran which, he charges, undermine U.S. policy and give a platform for anti-American propaganda. He has also charged that U.S. broadcasts in Arabic on Radio Sawa and Alhurra Television have also given “uninterrupted and unchallenged platforms to terrorists and other enemies of the U.S. and our allies.”

One of the most blatant examples of editorial mismanagement at the BGG, exposed with the help of Free Media Online, was the airing of statements by Holocaust deniers by Alhurra Television.

While the BBG members approve strategic plans and budget submissions to Congress, the recommendations for program cuts come from the permanent BBG executive staff. They were responsible in the past for proposing to reduce radio broadcasts to Tibet, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Ukraine and the Republic of Georgia. They have also been accused of failing to maintain editorial standards, which led to such journalistic blunders as the airing of statements by Holocaust deniers on the BBG-managed Alhurra Television for the Middle East. They also failed to prevent major financial scandals at the BBG-managed broadcasting entities.

In one of their most controversial moves in recent years, the BBG executive staff had sold the previous BBG members on the idea of eliminating VOA radio broadcasts to Russia. In her commentary in The Washington Times, Ms. Cullum pointed out that after the BBG had ended VOA Russian radio programming in 2008 just several days before Russian military forces invaded the Republic of Georgia, subsequent survey data indicated that sole reliance upon a VOA Russian website resulted in a wholesale disintegration of its audience base. Ms. Cullum had opposed these programming cuts when she was still a member of the BBG.

Americans for U. S. International Broadcasting Petition Save Voice of America Shortwave

Americans for U.S. International Broadcasting, a group of current and former VOA and BBG employees and free media advocates, have started a petition drive to convince Congress to reject the BBG’s and the Obama Administration’s proposals for eliminating shortwave radio broadcasts to China.

Senator Richard Lugar

Some members of Congress and their staff are also concerned about media censorship in China and the Chinese government’s efforts to control Internet access in their country. Senator Richard Lugar, Republican from Indiana, issued a Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff report — “Another U.S. Deficit – China and America – Public Diplomacy in the Age of the Internet”– which details China’s initiatives to censor the Internet while expanding its influence in the world. The report was prepared under the direction of Senior Professional Staff Member Paul Foldi, who visited the region.

ANOTHER U.S. DEFICIT
—CHINA AND AMERICA—
PUBLIC DIPLOMACY IN THE
AGE OF THE INTERNET
A REPORT
TO THE MEMBERS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
FEBRUARY 15, 2011

XinhuaNews, the official press agency of the Chinese government, will soon be allowed to open a multi-floored office in Times Square and already broadcasts from an AM transmitter in Texas. By contrast, Beijing limits the Voice of America to a single, two-person office there, blocks the opening of a VOA bureau in Shanghai. Furthermore, China forces both VOA and Radio Free Asia to beam in on Short Wave radio from distant locations well outside its borders. China also routinely jams these transmissions as well as blocks both VOA’s and RFA’s Internet sites. Meanwhile, Congress has provided tens of millions of dollars to assist in Internet freedom issues including Internet Censorship Circumvention Technology, but little of that money has been allocated by the State Department in spite of clear bipartisan support.

VOA insiders told Free Media Online that the BBG executives who make decisions to eliminate radio broadcasts have no experience of living under communism and do not understand the psychology of authoritarian rulers and those who suffer under oppressive regimes.

The Taipei Times reports that the morale of the Voice of America Chinese Service journalists is at its all-time low.

According to sources at VOA, who spoke with The Taipei Times on the condition of protecting their anonymity, the work environment had turned sour as pressure from management led to on-air hosts self-censoring themselves.

One instance involved the invitation of World Uyghur Congress leader Rebeiya Kadeer for a show, which resulted in the show’s host being slapped on the wrist afterward for failing to invite a Chinese official to provide the other side of the story.

“The Chinese propaganda is already available for all to listen to,” the source said, adding that VOA did not need to serve as a platform for the views of the Chinese Communist Party and in many cases VOA served as one of the few means for minorities to voice their message out.

The source also said it was highly unlikely that Chinese officials invited to participate on a VOA show would have agreed to do so.

Eventually, employees discovered that the pressure from management, which on certain occasions resulted in self- censorship, was the direct result of a sustained campaign of complaints from Chinese diplomats.

“[Yielding to their pressure, and now shutting us down] sends the wrong strategic message to Beijing,” a source said, adding that regardless of whether Congress passed the budget cuts or not, “this should serve as a warning to management at VOA not to give up on human rights in China.”

The Voice of America Chinese Service journalist may very well be right that the BBG has been succumbing to the pressure from Chinese diplomats who complain to the State Department.

Chairman Walter Isaacson made news last October by naming China’s and Russia’s official media as America’s “enemies,” alongside state media in Iran and Venezuela, but he quickly disavowed his comments, most likely after being rebuked by high-ranking officials of the Obama Administration, either at the State Department or at the White House. He used such strong language while calling for more money for the BBG to combat foreign propaganda.

Mr. Isaacson criticized the state media in China and Russia at the 60th anniversary celebration for Radio Free Europe (RFE), which he credited with contributing to the end of the Cold War. [A transcript of the speech is available here.] When questioned by The Cable, a FOREIGN POLICY (FP) blog about his “enemies” comment, Isaacson apologized for the remark, while saying that the “enemies” he was referring to were in Afghanistan, not the several countries he mentioned.

“I of course did not mean to refer to, nor do I consider, that Russia, China, and the other countries or news services are enemies of the U.S., and I’m sorry if I gave that impression,” he told The Cable. The BBG has also published a statement of clarification on its website.

The incident showed that not even the BBG Chairman is protected from censorship by autocratic regimes. Their diplomats are putting pressure on the State Department, which under the Obama Administration seems far more willing to carry their message of censorship to the BBG Chairman and to get him to comply with their demands.

Ted Lipien, former Voice of America acting associate director and VOA journalist during several Democratic and Republican administration, said that President Obama’s refusal to meet prior to his official visit to Beijing with the Tibetan spiritual leader Dalai Lama has send a strong message to human rights activists and government censors alike in China and other countries ruled by authoritarian regimes. According to Lipien, the tone set by the Obama Administration has also contributed to self-censorship and unbalanced reporting at the Voice of America and other broadcasting entities managed by the BBG. An analysis conducted by Free Media Online showed that the Voice of America has violated its Congressional mandate in reporting on the ongoing debate in Congress about the new START treaty with Russia on arms reductions by heavily promoting the pro-treaty statements by the Obama Administration officials and almost completely ignoring serious objections to the proposed treaty raised by Republican lawmakers.

The Voice of America reporting on the U.S. debate about the proposed START treaty would make the Voice of Russia radio and Russia Today television proud, said Ted Lipien who now heads Free Media Online, a California-based NGO which supports free and independent media and reporting worldwide.

In 2008, Free Media Online launched GovoritAmerika.US, a Russian-language website which aggregates U.S. government and non-government media reports. The website was created in response to the Broadcasting Board of Governors’ decision to cancel VOA Russian radio broadcasts, an action taken just 12 days before the Russian military attack on the Republic of Georgia. Free Media Online has been highly critical of the BBG’s management of  U.S. international broadcasting, terminations of radio broadcasts, and over-reliance on the Internet without being able to protect its websites from cyber attacks.

Links to sign a petition to save U.S. news radio broadcasts to China.

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.

See the original post:
Freedom House: Obama Should Call for Mubarak to Step Down Immediately

View original post here:
Supporting indigenous democrats is no imposition

Follow this link:
Clinton Speech Addresses Human Rights in China in Advance of State Visit

Follow this link:
Obama adminstration’s approach to democracy and human rights: ‘weak’ or ‘activist’?

TedLipien.com, Truckee, California, USA, January 03, 2011 — Who is the leader of the Free World when democracy is under threat?

For a moment on New Year’s Eve 2010, I thought the leader of the free world was still George W. Bush. The President of the United States reads a message of solidarity with the people of Belarus, whose rights and freedoms have been once again trampled by an authoritarian ruler. Except that those reading the message were a former U.S President and a former U.S. Secretary of State, both Republicans. They were joined other world leaders, former statesmen, and human rights activists — courageous individuals like former Czech President Vaclav Havel, human rights activist Yelena Bonner, the widow of Soviet-era dissident Andrei Sakharov, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg, and many others.

Former President Bush read the names of five Belarusian presidential candidates still being held in a KGB prison. The other participants read the names of other political prisoners in Belarus. But there was no high-ranking member of the Obama administration among the participants in the “Voices of Solidarity” project.

Most Americans and millions in the rest of the world expect the President of the United States to speak up forcefully when democracy abroad is under major attack. When shortly before Christmas 1981, General Wojciech Jaruzelski imposed martial law in Poland, there was not a slightest doubt that President Reagan would appear in front of television cameras to express the support of the American people for the Polish independent trade union movement Solidarity and its imprisoned leader Lech Walesa. In the last weeks of 2010, few expected President Obama to act forcefully and effectively in face of yet another attack against freedom and democracy in Belarus.

Both attacks on democracy supporters happened during a holiday season. President Reagan, who was in 1981 much older than President Obama is now, had showed remarkable energy, determination, and leadership in letting the world know what the United States thought about a communist dictator like General Jaruzelski. Much younger Barack Obama left Washington for a family vacation in Hawaii.

If you do not see the video of President Reagan’s Christmas address to the American people in 1981, try this link.

When elections in Belarus were stolen and democracy supporters beaten and imprisoned just before Christmas 2010, the White House issued a short written statement. Granted, the severity of repression in Belarus now has not reached the same level as in Poland in 1981, but presidential leadership in the U.S. was still woefully and significantly inadequate. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and European Union High Representative Catherine Ashton issued a statement on the post-presidential elections situation in Belarus. It was short and, as the title suggests, without much bite. Again, it does not compare in any way to President Reagan’s numerous statements and speeches after the imposition of martial law in Poland.

If you cannot see the video of President Obama’s Christmas 2010 address, click here.

President Reagan with Pope John Paul II in Fairbanks, Alaska, 1984. In his numerous efforts to help Solidarity, President Ronald Reagan consulted with Pope John Paul II.

One could presume it was yet another of President Obama’s public diplomacy blunders, but unfortunately it is much more than that. This and other acts and omissions reflect his deliberate decision, taken at the outset of his presidency, to give up for all practical purposes the role of the leader of the Free World.

After two years, it is now obvious that President Obama assumed the office determined not to upset totalitarian dictators. Operating under the illusion that by avoiding an overly confrontational posture he’ll be able to negotiate concessions and help them to reform later, he has emboldened dictators and insulted numerous loyal U.S. allies.

Former Solidarity Leader, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and former Polish President Lech Walesa.

Many, especially those who had lived or still live under communist and other totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, knew perfectly well that this approach would result in a retreat for democracy. Vaclav Havel, Lech Walesa, and other leaders in East-Central Europe even sent a warning letter to the White House early into the Obama presidency. Still some pro-democracy and human rights activists, especially in Western Europe, were initially impressed with his soft power diplomacy as a welcome alternative to military interventionism of George W. Bush. Granted, President Obama has not started any new costly and unnecessary wars, but a series of public diplomacy disasters over the last two years, culminating in his weak response to repression in Belarus just before Christmas 2010, have exposed him at home and abroad as an ineffective U.S leader.

President Obama’s public diplomacy strategy stems from his view of America as a threatening power, a popular theme among his left-wing friends and among revisionist academics who became his advisers on Russia and the Middle East. I became concerned that U.S. public diplomacy under his presidency was in crisis when not a single U.S. diplomat or any other official was able to advise him that announcing his unilateral decision to end George Bush’s anti-missile program in Central Europe on the day of the anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland would be received by the Poles as an ultimate insult.

But the first real sign that confirmed to me President Obama’s intention to relinquish his role of leading the Free World in defending democracy was his refusal to meet Dalai Lama in an apparent effort to avoid upsetting the aging communist leaders in China. Former Czech dissident, human rights activist, statesman, playwright, and Nobel Prize winner Vaclav Havel said, after learning that President Obama had refused to meet the Dalai Lama, “It is only a minor compromise, but exactly with these minor compromises start the big and dangerous ones, the real problems.”

When President Obama finally received Dalai Lama, the media released a photograph showing the Tibetan spiritual leader being ushered out of the White House by a side entrance, passing by a pile of trash bags. It was yet another example that no one in the administration was in charge of public diplomacy.

The answer to wielding influence abroad in defense of democracy is not blind, uninformed military interventionism of George W. Bush being pushed into war by advisers with a hidden agenda, but neither is it “resetting” of relations with ex-KGB spies and other opponents of democracy. President Obama could learn a lot from the leadership style of Ronald Reagan, who knew what he stood for and knew how to select and control his advisers and communicate his message to the American people and the world. But to be like Reagan, President Obama would have to first change his political philosophy and his vision of America. I don’t think that is likely to happen.

It is fairly clear by now that the Free World will have to wait for a new leader until the end of President Obama’s presidency. That role cannot be assumed by George W. Bush or Senator John McCain. Only the President of the United States, as the elected leader of the most powerful nation in the world, can assume this role, but only if he wants to. It is now obvious that President Obama does not want that role. In fact, he is ashamed of it, as he has demonstrated many times, delighting dictators and instilling fear among U.S. allies.

Snapshot from RFE/RL Website, January 02, 2010.

It’s a shame that public diplomacy on behalf of the American people, American values, and America’s long-term interests around the world is now being conducted not by the administration but has to be pursued by former U.S. leaders like George W. Bush, who is not particularly popular abroad. But if President Obama won’t find time to become a public voice in support of freedom, at least the former president has shown what many Americans think and that demonstrated that they won’t be silent when democracy abroad is in danger even if the current occupant of the White House prefers to stay on the sidelines.

RFE/RL President Jeff Gedmin

Interestingly, the initiative of conducting U.S. public diplomacy in defense of freedom has been taken up also by the U.S.-funded broadcaster Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), which had played a major role in helping to bring down the communist system. I have been in the past critical of RFE/RL, especially its treatment of its own journalists, but many of these policies had been imposed on the station by former members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) and the BBG’s executives in Washington, D.C. Under the leadership of Bush-era appointed president Jeff Gedmin, RFE/RL has been trying to fill the gap created by the lack of a long-term U.S. public diplomacy strategy in East-Central Europe. RFE/RL has been broadcasting messages of support for the people of Belarus and providing news about the struggle for democracy to a number of countries in Eurasia.

Unfortunately, without a high-profile support from the White House and the State Department, RFE/RL’s work will never have the same impact as it had during the Cold War. If anything, it further demonstrates the crisis of U.S. public diplomacy by sending a message that any change in American human rights policy and in relations with the countries of East-Central Europe will not come until the end of the Obama presidency. At least, RFE/RL is making it clear to its audiences that not all Americans agree with President Obama and his vision of America and the world.

Still it is unfortunate that practically the only voice on behalf of the majority of the American citizens who had voted against the Democratic Party in November 2010 and indirectly voiced their opposition not only to President Obama’s economic policies but also his foreign policy, is a radio station which is practically unknown to most Americans. Although it is funded by the U.S. Congress, RFE/RL is based in the Czech Republic and most of its employees are foreign journalists who have never been to the United States.

RFE/RL’s primary role has always been to serve as a surrogate domestic radio in the countries to which they broadcast. The role of explaining U.S. foreign policy and any opposition to it among Americans has always been assigned to the Voice of America, another U.S. government-funded international broadcaster which is based in Washington, D.C. and managed by the same U.S. Federal agency, the Broadcasting Board of Governors.

Snapshot of VOA English Service Website on Jan. 02, 2011.

Yet it appears from a quick review of its English and Russian websites that the Voice of America did not even report on the RFE/RL’s Belarus initiative or the fact that George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice participated in it as the most prominent Americans. A search for “Bush, Belarus, and RFE/RL” on the VOA websites did not return any results.

If these two stations, working under the same BBG management, cannot consult with one another, it’s rather obvious that no one in Washington is in charge of coordinating public diplomacy and international broadcasting.

What a big difference compared to Christmas time in 1981 during Ronald Reagan’s presidency, when I received numerous phone calls at home late at night from officials of the now defunct United States Information Agency (USIA) who wanted to know what kind of assistance the Voice of America’s Polish Service, where I was a managing editor, needed to expand immediately its medium wave and shortwave radio broadcasts to Poland.

The Voice of America has not had any programs in Belarusian. It used to broadcast, however, radio programs in Russian, a language which is widely understood in Belarus. What made VOA largely ineffective in East-Central Europe was the BBG ‘s decision to terminate Russian radio programs in 2008, just 12 days before the Russian military attack on Georgia. The BBG also ended all VOA programs in Central European languages.

The VOA English Service in the meantime has been broadcasting numerous news reports in support of President Obama’s “reset” policy with the Kremlin with very little balancing input from Republican lawmakers and other responsible critics of the administration — a legal requirement for VOA journalists under the VOA Charter approved by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Gerald Ford.

One particularly one-sided VOA English Service analysis of U.S.-Russian relations, which completely ignored any Congressional and other U.S. criticism of President Obama’s approach to managing relations with the Kremlin, was first broadcast in English and then translated and put on the VOA Russian website. It was also translated by other VOA language services which lack resources to originate their own, more balanced reporting.

And while democracy supporters in Belarus were still being rounded up and independent media outlets raided by the secret police, VOA and BBG officials issued a self-congratulatory press release bragging about VOA’s ability to communicate with the audience in Belarus through the Internet and social media. They failed to mention that social media sites were blocked in Belarus by the regime during the contested elections and the violence that followed. They also failed to note that Internet access in Belarus is still very limited, and that the number of visitors from Belarus to the VOA Russian Service website, if they even can be accurately counted, is statistically insignificant.

Only a few days after the issuing of the deceptive press release, there was nothing left on VOA Russian Service website home page Sunday to indicate that Belarus was still a significant U.S. foreign policy concern. In fact, there was not a single news item on Belarus. Neither VOA Russian or VOA English home page features any banners with a link to more coverage of dramatic events in Belarus — something human rights defenders would certainly welcome.

The State Department website, state.gov, when I checked it on Sunday, January 2, had nothing on its home page on Belarus. Another State Department website, America.gov, had on its home page only one link to the statement on presidential elections in Belarusdelivered by the charge d’affairs of the United States Mission to the OSCE. Again, it was short and without any bite: “The United States has made clear throughout its engagement with the government of Belarus that the government’s respect for human rights and the democratic process is at the center of our bilateral relations. The actions taken by Belarusian authorities following the elections represent a clear step backwards on these issues.” There were no “Solidarity with Belarus” banners of any kind on the State Department websites, but then U.S. diplomats should not be expected to do anything that President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would not want them to do. The example has to come from the top.

The Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Judith McHale

The Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, who — according to the State Department website — “leads America’s public diplomacy outreach, which includes communications with international audiences,” is Judith McHale, appointed to this position by President Obama. But one could also say in her defense that nothing she did not do President Obama really wanted to be done. He certainly did not show much interest himself in the tragic events in Belarus. State Department officials are pursuing his public diplomacy, not necessarily public diplomacy serving long-term U.S. interests.

In 1981, VOA Polish Service did not have a website, but millions listening to our radio programs knew that the United States was fully behind the people of Poland. But then there was also no doubt what President Reagan, the White House, and the State Department stood for.

During Ronald Reagan’s presidency, U.S. public diplomacy had a powerful message in support of freedom, and U.S. international broadcasting played its journalistic role of reporting on it. While I can understand that VOA English and Russian services cannot report on something that the Obama White House and the State Department are NOT doing to keep Belarus in the news, they could at least report more on what others outside of the administration have been doing to draw attention to the violations of human rights which continue everyday, even when U.S. officials and many VOA and BBG managers are on a holiday vacation.

In light of all these developments, the initiative of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty to broadcast the message to Belarus from former President George W. Bush and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is highly commendable. It’s vastly better than the totally ineffective public diplomacy outreach to Belarus from the Obama administration. Let’s hope that RFE/RL’s creative initiative will do some good, especially when Bush and Rice are heard alongside of many non-American statesmen and human rights activists.

But the participation of George W. Bush and the prominent placement of his photo on the RFE/RL’s website — but not on the VOA website — also send another powerful public diplomacy message, and not a very good one: the pilot of the Free World is still missing from the plane. The people in Belarus and in other countries under dictatorships are justified in asking who will be leading America in its support for human rights and democracy for the next two years. Unfortunately, they have already concluded, that it is not going to be President Obama.

We should be grateful that we still have Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Americans like George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice, but these are not U.S. institutions and leaders who can have the greatest possible impact on public opinion abroad. The leadership in support of democracy has to come from the President and the White House to be taken seriously by dictators and authoritarian rulers like Russia’s ex-KGB spy Vladimir Putin. That type of leadership has been missing for the last two years.

As a former United States Information Agency and Voice of America employee with over 30 years of U.S. government service, my unofficial and subversive — from the perspective of the current White House and the State Department — public diplomacy message for foreign audiences is that President Reagan’s response to events in Poland in 1981 was much more typical for what most American’s would want now than President Obama’s practical non-response to the assault on democracy and human rights in Belarus.

Another unofficial public diplomacy message — again for what it’s worth since I have absolutely no current connection to the administration — is that President Obama’s foreign policy should not be always identified with the desires of the American people. In other words, democracy supporters abroad should not blame the American people and the United States for President Obama’s weak support for human rights. It is also worth remembering, especially in light of the results of the 2010 U.S. Congressional elections, that Barack Obama may no longer be president in 2013 and that American voters may soon help bring U.S. foreign policy back on its more traditional course.

About Ted Lipien

Ted Lipien is a former Voice of America acting associate director. He was also a regional BBG media marketing manager responsible for placement of U.S. government-funded radio and TV programs on stations in Russia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries in Eurasia. In the 1980′s he was in charge of VOA radio broadcasts to Poland during the communist regime’s crackdown on the Solidarity labor union and oversaw the development of VOA television news programs to Ukraine and Russia. After leaving U.S. government service, he founded Free Media Online (FreeMediaOnline.org), a California-based NGO which supports media freedom worldwide.

He is also author of “Wojtyla’s Women: How They Shaped the Life of Pope John Paul II and Changed the Catholic Church”(O-Books – June 2008). The book, which describes Pope John Paul II’s views on feminism, also includes evidence of the importance of Western radio broadcasts during Karol Wojtyla’s life in communist-ruled Poland and in the first ten years of his papacy. The book also has references to the efforts of the KGB and other communist intelligence services to place spies in the Vatican and to influence reporting by journalists covering the Polish pope.

This commentary by Ted Lipien may be republished in full or in part with attribution to FreeMediaOnline.org.

Related posts:

1. Why U.S. Public Diplomacy No Longer Works and Can It Be Fixed?
2. US Public Diplomacy Failure to Reach Out to the Russians After Terrorist Attack in Ingushetia – FreeMediaOnline.org (Free Media Online Blog)
3. Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty Faces Ethnic Discrimination Charges at the European Court of Human Rights – Free Media Online Blog (FreeMediaOnline.org)
4. Walesa on Obama’s Missile Diplomacy – American Diplomacy Failed Obama in Poland Update
5. American Diplomacy Failed Obama in Poland

 Sourced from: TedLipien.com

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

This report was first published by

TedLipien.com, Truckee, California, December 28, 2010.

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

TedLipien.com, Truckee, California, December 27, 2010 — On the day the U.S. Senate voted to approve the new arms reduction treaty with Russia, I found an article on the State Depatment’s website, America.gov, which gave a long list of the START treaty’s benefits lauded by the Obama administration but failed to note any of the objections from some key Republican lawmakers and other critics. I posted a short comment that a website devoted to public diplomacy, with a name that implies that it represents the views of the entire American government and the American public, should try to present a more balanced perspective and mention some of the difficulties in getting the U.S.-Russian agreement approved by the Senate.

Within only a few minutes my comment was removed. After successfully challenging censorship for more than 30 years by bringing balanced news to communist-ruled Poland, Ukraine, Russia, Bosnia, Afghanistan and other countries, I was finally successfully censored by my former employer, the United States government.

While I was in charge of the Voice of America radio broadcasts to Poland during the Jaruzelski regime crackdown on Lech Walesa and the Solidarity movement, I managed to ignore a few minor attempts by State Department officials to censor VOA news content. Of course, the same government is now censoring members of the U.S. Congress, so the removal of my comment seems hardly significant but is typical for this administration. After leaving my last government position of acting associate director of the Voice of America, I founded and began working for Free Media Online, an NGO promoting independent journalism worldwide, which explains my continuing interest in government censorship, propaganda and public diplomacy.

The current problem with having effective U.S. public diplomacy is largely due to the recent breakdown of domestic consensus on important values and foreign policy issues that existed during the Cold War, but bureaucratic inertia and incompetence also play a very large role. As a journalist, former government employee, manager, and executive, I had a direct knowledge of the inner-workings of the Voice of America, the now defunct United States Information Agency, the State Department, and the Broadcasting Board of Governors. I have never seen U.S. public diplomacy in such a crisis as it is now, not even during the George W. Bush administration.

One could ask how the United States government can engage in shaping public opinion abroad if the President publicly accused Republican senators of playing politics with the START treaty? Even if it were partly true for some lawmakers, such a public accusation reported to the entire world is unprecedented, especially since Senator McCain and other prominent Republicans raised some serious questions about START and President Obama’s overall approach to dealing with the authoritarian rulers in the Kremlin. This kind of public rebuke of U.S. lawmakers is almost equivalent to members of Congress criticizing the administration while on their trips abroad. It’s simply not done and it is terrible public diplomacy.

But regardless of how bitter or divided are the current foreign policy debates in the United States, there can be no effective public diplomacy if the administration is afraid to or does not want to tell foreign audiences what Americans really think and say about foreign and domestic issues. Censoring members of Congress by State Department officials is particularly outrageous, but in some cases even professional journalists employed by the U.S. government practice self-censorship or promote the administration’s policies, because they agree with them, without regard for full accuracy and balance.

I have checked the Voice of America’s recent coverage of the START treaty debate and found that the VOA English Service devoted about 90 percent of its online START news content to views in support of the treaty. While a VOA spokesperson described my claim as incorrect, a text analysis of all recent online VOA English Service stories on this subject can be easily done by anyone using an word count application. By law, the Voice of America, which is funded by American taxpayers to communicate with audiences abroad, is required to offer balanced news coverage.

I’m not arguing that public diplomacy cannot be effective when there is no strong domestic consensus on foreign policy. But to be effective, especially if there is no broad consensus, it must be conducted professionally by individuals and organizations devoted above all to promoting long-term U.S. national interests. Public diplomacy is sometimes described as strategic communications, which implies pursuing U.S. strategic interests, which may not be the same as short-term foreign policy goals of a particular administration. They may later turn out to be misguided. This should be a primary lesson for all current and future State Department officials engaged in public diplomacy.

It is unlikely however, that an effective organizational setup can be established within the U.S. government for formulating implementing long-term public diplomacy goals or that the current structures can be reformed without strong pressure from the U.S. Congress and the American public.

Public diplomacy and international broadcasting have not been a high priority issue in the United States after the end of the Cold War. There is a small chance, however, that this may change as a result of old and new foreign policy blunders, revelations by Wiki Leaks, but especially due to new activism on behalf of individuals and organizations using new media, if such citizen initiatives achieve a certain momentum and attract the attention of sympathetic members of Congress.

We can be fairly sure that the public diplomacy and international broadcasting bureaucracy is not going to reform itself from within without constant public and Congressional scrutiny, which fortunately is increasing due to the power of social media. In addition to the lack of domestic political consensus on foreign policy, one of the other key obstacles to overcome is the incompetence of government bureaucrats. It has now reached new levels even at the State Department and the White House.

Another major difficulty to overcome by the same bureaucrats who are part of the problem is the revolution in quick dissemination of news, including the leaking of secret government communications by Wiki Leaks and others. Very few U.S. government officials in charge of public diplomacy have the necessary training and experience in journalism and new media. Again, without public criticism and pressure, they are not likely to change their way of conducting public diplomacy.

Why are U.S. government officials unable to stop embarrassing foreign policy and public diplomacy blunders? We no longer have at the highest levels independently-minded Foreign Service officers like Ambassador Arthur Bliss Lane who resigned to register his protest against the sellout of Poland to Stalin by President Roosevelt and the lack of proper response to the fraudulent post-war Polish elections by the Truman administration.

In fact, not a single highly-paid U.S. diplomat or White House official managed to prevent President Obama from insulting our Polish allies when he made his announcement of the cancellation of the Bush missile defense plan in Central Europe on the anniversary of the invasion of Poland by the Soviet Union. No advisor was also able to convince President Obama that his refusal to meet Dalai Lama at the White House, in an apparent effort to please the communist leaders in China, would send a powerfully negative signal to human rights and democracy activists around the world and to America’s democratic allies. And when the Voice of America fails to deliver news to Belarus during the recent crisis, the bureaucrats who terminated VOA Russian radio broadcasts issue a self-congratulatory press release.

Numerous public diplomacy blunders of this kind raise questions about the ability of U.S. government officials to advise presidents and to manage strategic communications with the outside world. While the current president and his administration seem particularly incompetent, the George W. Bush administration did not fare much better in public diplomacy abroad, although it managed to develop a successful pro-Iraq war propaganda at home — propaganda that was not effectively challenged by the American media. There is a solution, however, to this problem. It involves a much greater reliance on independent analysis, courage to challenge political appointees, applying journalistic standards of fairness and balance, and a greater appreciation of the sophistication of foreign audiences.

The START treaty debate is a good example of how public diplomacy should have worked but did not. Telling the Russian public and the Kremlin through VOA and America.gov that the START treaty enjoyed widespread support and its approval by the Senate was a piece of cake was not only factually wrong. It was also bad public diplomacy and bad for long-term U.S. interests. It mislead foreign audiences and it may make the Russian leaders even more inclined to make further demands on the Obama administration for additional concessions. It assumed that foreigners who are consumers of U.S. government-generated news and information are morons with no access to alternative sources of information.

I’m not saying that the Obama administration could not have still bragged about being able to get the Senate’s approval for the treaty, but a balanced message would have been far more credible and, for some East and Central Europeans, somewhat more reassuring. It would have been educational for the majority of the Russian public which supports Prime Minister Putin’s KGB-like tactics in dealing with the opposition, independent journalists, and leaders like President Obama. The impression left by the State Department’s America.gov website and the Voice of America is that nothing much matters to the Obama White House than making deals with the Kremlin, not even the discovery of sleeper Russian agents in the U.S., their hero welcome in Russia by Prime Minister Putin and President Medvedev, and a statement by a Kremlin insider that assassins are being sent to America to track down and kill a former Russian spy who betrayed them.

Telling the whole truth and even stressing the objections to the treaty would have been a good lesson in American domestic politics for the Russians and their leaders. It could have sent also a signal to worried U.S. allies in East-Central Europe that the American people and their representatives in Congress are beginning to pay a close attention to President Obama’s foreign policy and that his political future is now in doubt after the 2010 congressional elections.

The public diplomacy message, as it was delivered by the State Department and independently through the Voice of America news, could only be described as boring and naive journalism, almost an insult to the intelligence of foreign audiences. It was not much different from Kremlin-style propaganda. Considering that foreign media are apparently one of the target audiences for the America.gov website, it’s highly doubtful that any foreign journalist would use such one-sided material. It also made a mockery of the State Department’s promotion of objective journalism and media freedom abroad. The Voice of America did not do not much better in that respect.

What could make U.S. public diplomacy abroad more effective? We could start by offering better education in diplomatic history in American high schools and colleges. Perhaps then we could elect presidents who would have some knowledge of history and were able to gain some meaningful foreign policy experience. The same goes for selecting the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the National Security Advisor, and the Secretary of Defense. One could very well ask where were Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates when President Obama was getting ready to make his missile defense announcement? Did none of them study European history? If they were too busy to advise President Obama on the timing of one of the most significant foreign policy announcements of his presidency, where was the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Judith A. McHale?

The next step is the selection of future U.S. diplomats. The testing standards should be set much higher and candidates should be checked for their willingness to raise effective objections to bad and naive decisions of their superiors, even at the cost of their careers.

Making public diplomacy independent of the State Department, as it was more of less during the Cold War when the United States Information Agency (USIA) was charged with managing direct communications with foreign audiences, would help, assuming it was led by a high-profile, independent and experienced professional with direct access to the President and the Secretary of State.

The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), which has mismanaged the Voice of America for years, should be abolished and journalistic independence and standards at VOA and other government-funded U.S. international broadcasters significantly strengthened under some type of public monitoring and oversight.

The Congress should above all insist that the U.S. foreign policy establishment accept the fact that when there is no clear domestic consensus on foreign policy and other issues, U.S. officials in charge of communicating directly with audiences abroad be required to present a balanced message. A balanced message and telling the whole truth is in the long run more credible and better for promoting American interests abroad than one-sided government propaganda.

I have seen tremendous bitterness of Polish media, politicians, and average citizens as a result of President Obama’s policies toward East-Central Europe and Russia. While some blamed specifically President Obama, most of it has been directed against “the Americans” and “the United States.” Very few Poles tried to distinguish between President Obama’s particular assumptions about the Russian leaders and America’s long term support for democratic values and nations like Poland which are victims of bullying by authoritarian regimes of their much bigger neighbors.

Part of the new public diplomacy message could be that U.S. foreign policy mistakes, such as the sellout of Eastern Europe to Stalin at Yalta, are eventually discovered and reversed because the American people are not going to stand for policies that go against basic American values, once they know the full facts. History teaches that they won’t. But my friends in Central and Western Europe tell me that it may take new U.S. administrations decades to reverse the damage done to relations with America’s European allies by President Obama’s so far futile attempts to curry favors with the Kremlin at the expense of solid American friends in the region.

I don’t really expect the State Department to come up with a sophisticated message that promotes President Obama’s goals while explaining historical and strategic objections to his policies. America.gov could, however, try to pay slightly more attention to the critics of the Obama administration. The Voice of America could, with even fewer problems, offer in-depth, objective and balanced reporting because its journalistic independence is guaranteed by the Congress. Unfortunately, the BBG terminated all VOA broadcasts and online reporting to Central Europe long time ago. It also ended VOA Russian radio programs in 2008, just 12 days before the Russian military attack on Georgia.

This brings me to my final point on additional and alternative ways of conducting U.S. public diplomacy abroad. I don’t expect much action from the Obama administration, and even under the best circumstances, the U.S. government bureaucracy is not likely to be able to overcome its internal barriers to promoting effectively and without political bias long term, strategic U.S. interests.

While it was difficult for citizen public diplomacy to be effective during the Cold War due to the high costs of communicating and overcoming communist censorship, the Internet makes it possible now to achieve some form of limited direct communication with the public in most foreign countries. Individuals and organizations in the United States can help to expose foreign policy and public diplomacy mistakes, demand action, and in some cases communicate directly with audiences abroad.

Unfortunately, however, citizen diplomacy is not the complete solution to the current problem. Statements and actions by NGOs do not have, again in most cases, the same impact as communications on behalf the of the U.S. government, and NGOs simply lack the resources available to federal agencies. So whether we like it or not, NGOs cannot completely replace the U.S. government in this area of foreign policy. Greater scrutiny and reform of the U.S. public diplomacy establishment must therefore become a goal of all individuals and organizations concerned with the state of America’s relations with her allies and the rest of the world.

Related posts:

1. US Public Diplomacy Failure to Reach Out to the Russians After Terrorist Attack in Ingushetia – FreeMediaOnline.org (Free Media Online Blog)
2. Sen. Voinovich criticizes Obama for public diplomacy disaster
3. Misleading foreign audiences – America.gov or America.STATE – U.S. Senate Ratifies New START Treaty
4. Walesa on Obama’s Missile Diplomacy – American Diplomacy Failed Obama in Poland Update
5. Voice of America English programs go the way of Voice of Russia, says former VOA journalist

 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

IT’S THE MORALITY, STUPID

a commentary by Lev Roitman

Evidently, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) bureaucrats (President Jeffrey Gedmin) are in dire need for public celebrations together with the new Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). Never mind the calendar. Otherwise, one is hard put to understand why on September 28th they collectively marked in the Washington Newseum the 60th Anniversary of the first RFE broadcast that happen to take place from New York on the 4th of July. And, as it seems, the joint celebration will be set forth.

In October, new BBG (in place since June 30th ) is for the first time coming to RFE/RL in Prague. BBG Chairman, Mr. Walter Isaacson, at the festive event in Washington, quote: “And thanks to Jeff (Gedmin), we’ve arranged to have a meeting with Havel”. No doubt, for BBG, it will be a memorable event. But, quite possibly, also an embarrassing one. For the former Czech President Vaclav Havel who came to personify morality, honesty and human decency, is well aware of the scandalous events that systematically ruin moral reputation of the American RFE/RL hosted since the time of his presidency by the Czech Republic.

In addition, BBG will meet in Prague the Nobel Prize winner, Shirin Ebady, Iranian human-rights lawyer. However, one may wonder, why RFE/RL President did not arrange for the BBG also a meeting with staunchly pro-American Czech senator Jaromir Stetina who actively strives to protect and improve RFE/RL moral standing. Probably, the answer may be found in the following letter addressed to President Obama by former RFE/RL employee Anna Karapetian. With her expressed permission, the letter is reproduced below.

“September 19, 2010

Re: Broadcasting Board of Governors and Radio Free Europe – Your Intervention

Dear Mr. President:

I am an Armenian journalist with over twenty years of professional experience, mother of three minors, whose employment with American Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) in Prague was terminated after 12 years of impeccable service – without any reason given to me, without any prior warning or corrective measures, without even severance pay for the years of work — because I refused to sign a consent with such a termination, accept the “shut up” severance money and give up my right of appeal to the court of law.

As it happened, the very same day, 6/30/2010, the American Senate in Washington approved your presidential nominees to the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), I received in Prague the decision of the Czech Supreme Court. The Court overruled all previous, negative for me, decisions of the lower courts in my human rights labor dispute with RFE/RL and returned the case for a new consideration. This very welcome victory could, however, mean additional years of legal battles in Czech courts – should RFE/RL be permitted to further insist on the assumed right to discriminate its foreign employees in the Czech Republic.

RFE/RL personnel policies were instituted by the former BBG. Under new BBG, they remain unchanged. Equally unchanged remains negative multilingual echo accompanying peculiar brand of “public diplomacy” practiced by RFE/RL bureaucrats. Quite a number of devastating articles (“From RFE/RL: Immorality as Matter of Policy”, Czech Supreme Court Rules Against Radio Free Europe. Karapetian’s Case Returned for New Consideration”, “Radio Free Europe – Task for Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg”, to mention but a few) had appeared after new BBG was publicly inaugurated.

This is why, Mr. President, I dare to ask for your personal attention and intervention. The problem created by American RFE/RL is not a legal one to be solved by foreign courts. It is purely political, moral and ethical issue.

Signing a standardized RFE/RL Employment Agreement “governed by the applicable laws of the United States, the laws of the District of Columbia or the Policies of the Company”, all non-American journalists trustfully and proudly placed themselves under the protective hand of RFE/RL, a beacon of human rights (on air). Only after landing jobless on the streets of Prague, I discovered that I and several hundred of my non-American colleagues, mostly from the target countries in RFE/RL broadcast area, being foreigners working for American employer outside the United States, are exempt from legal protections provided to Americans by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Civil Rights Act of 1964, District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977, or by any other American labor law. RFE/RL Czech employees are protected by Czech labor legislation. However, RFE/RL foreign employees are intentionally placed in legal vacuum.

How could RFE/RL offer such deceptive contracts to its foreign employees, knowing that they, for any practical purpose, cannot appeal to American courts? How could it defend its actions in Czech courts – until the Supreme Court did not cancel the decisions of lower courts in my case? The answer is dishonorable – to RFE/RL that historically unmasked Communist lies.

Formally, Czech Republic still has some regulations dating back to the Communist era, which allowed foreign companies to use foreign labor laws if they did not contradict the fundamentals of the “Czechoslovak Socialist Republic”. Absurd as it may sound, but in Czech courts RFE/RL refers to the Communist law of 1963 written to allow Soviet enterprises to use Soviet labor regulations in subjugated Czechoslovakia. What a hypocrisy!

Scandalous result of those legal tricks and gimmicks is that another former RFE/RL employee, Croatian citizen Snjezana Pelivan, brought the case against Czech Republic, RFE/RL host country, in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg — the first such case in the long history of RFE/RL. She considers also a formal application to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva where, as you know, a great number of its members (Libya, China, Russia, etc) is regularly criticized by the United States for human rights violations, and Cuba holds the chair of Vice President.

Countless reports, articles, commentaries, radio and TV broadcasts highly critical of RFE/RL discriminative personnel policies have appeared by now in American, Czech, Armenian, Croatian, Russian, Slovak print and electronic media, including statements from Czech politicians. Former Czech President Vaclav Havel, prominent human rights activist, in front of the running TV-cameras promised to personally monitor the court cases of arbitrarily fired RFE/RL employees. Czech Parliament already twice considered official inquiries (interpellations) concerning RFE/RL personnel policies. Czech Senator Jaromir Stetina who protested personally against human rights violations in Cuba and Belarus, deputy Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Defense and Security, member of the Senate Commission on International Support for Democracy, wrote an indignant open letter to American senators describing the RFE/RL actions as “patiently indecent, unfair, cynical and hypocritical”.

Recently, Senator Stetina, Vice-chairman of the Senate caucus of TOP 09 party headed by Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg, has asked the Minister to request the U.S. Secretary of State, BBG member ex officio, to stop ASAP the ongoing human rights violations by RFE/RL at the territory of Czech Republic. Beginning of October, Karel Schwarzenberg shall meet Mrs. Hillary Clinton in Washington. Copies of Senator’s letter were received also by the Speaker and Vice-speakers of the Czech Parliament representing the parties of the governmental coalition. BBG is aware of that letter, either.

Published in several languages, influential Armenian newspaper AZG (People) in extensive article, “Cases of Karapetian and Pelivan as Morality Check for Obama Administration. Radio Free Europe to Face European Court of Human Rights”, wrote:
The most devious anti-American mind would not be able to design an international media campaign so devastating to RFE/RL and, by natural extension, to American image and trustworthiness abroad, as the American RFE/RL managed to cause on its own.

In fact, RFE/RL, a highly visible overseas institution of American public diplomacy intended to be a powerful tool of American “soft power”, damages America’s reputation abroad. Undoubtedly, your authoritative and timely advice will change the unfortunate situation.

I don’t think, it is that complicated. First, nominated by you present BBG should seek a quiet peaceful resolution of the ongoing legal battles. Simply, the battlefield of RFE/RL-BBG public diplomacy should be not in foreign courts but in foreign public opinion. Second, RFE/RL shameful policies of “no-rights-to-foreigners” must be changed. People whose voices carry to their still undemocratic or less democratic countries the noble American messages of universal respect for human rights, national equality, rule of law and legal safeguards against arbitrariness, should not be just the rightless mercenaries in a professionally organized show. Instead, do “show the world the best face of America” — for the sake of dignity, moral influence and political reputation of American RFE/RL.
And I hope that change will come soon.

Thank you very much in advance, Mr. President.
Yours, with highest respect,
Anna Karapetian”

Mr. Isaacson and the rest of BBG, including Hillary Clinton, an ex officio member of both BBG and RFE/RL Board of Directors, have received copies of Karapetian’s letter to President Obama. On September 28th, at the RFE/RL belated celebration in Washington, Mr. Isaacson rolled out his impressive vision of technical possibilities to enhance the impact of American international message via Internet. Moral reputation of the messengers, the international broadcasters subordinate to BBG, was not mentioned. The topic did not fit the occasion? Will it be addressed in Prague?

Lev Roitman
Former RFE/RL senior commentator
(Ret. 2005)

Disclosure: Lev Roitman is married to Snjezana Pelivan, another former RFE/RL media specialist dismissed under similar circumstances as Anna Karapetian. Ms. Pelivan’s case is now pending before the European Human Rights Court in Strasbourg.

President Obama may very well kiss the Polish American vote good bye after committing yet another public diplomacy blunder which gave Vice President Biden, U.S. Ambassador to Poland Lee A. Feinstein and some Congressional Democrats plenty of reasons to be pulling their hair out in utter frustration over his insensitive behavior toward an important U.S. ally.

Biden and Feinstein, who have a much greater appreciation of history and diplomatic protocol than the President, had pushed hard to get him to agree to attend Polish President Lech Kaczynski’s state funeral in Krakow last Sunday. They briefly succeeded in their efforts but then the cloud of ash from the Icelandic volcano disrupted international air travel in Europe. Obama may have had a reasonable explanation for cancelling his plane trip due to the ash cloud in the atmosphere. But in a display of unheard of diplomatic insensitivity, he allowed himself to be photographed playing golf on the same day as the Polish President’s body was being buried at the Wawel Castle in Krakow.

By his actions last Sunday, Obama created a public diplomacy disaster for America in Poland and among the Polish American electorate. Meanwhile, Russia’s President Dmitry Medvedev, who had flown by plane from Moscow to attend the funeral, showed that he and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin can be real masters in shaping public opinion in a situation that could have had very bad repercussions for Russia and Russian-Polish relations. If anything, the death of President Kaczynski and other Polish leaders in Russia in the plane crash near Katyn, the place where Stalin’s secret police murdered thousands of Polish military officers during World War II, led to the strengthening of Polish-Russian ties due to outstanding public relations moves by both Putin and Medvedev.

This was not the first U.S. public diplomacy blunder vis-a-vis Poland since the Obama administration took office. Last September, President Obama deprived Poland of the U.S. missile defense system which the Polish government saw as the only effective military guarantee of America’s commitment to defend their country’s sovereignty against threats from Russia’s autocratic leaders. Obama announced his decision on September 17, the anniversary of Poland’s invasion by the Soviet Union in 1939 under the terms of Stalin’s secret agreement with Hitler which led to the division of the country between the two dictators.

It’s likely that the timing of the White House missile shield announcement was influenced by clever diplomatic suggestions from the Russian Foreign Ministry. Obama’s goal was to get Moscow to help him in dealing with Iran — help which he has not received and is not likely to get — and to sign the new arms control agreement with the Kremlin.

The arms agreement was indeed signed recently by President Obama and President Medvedev in Prague, the Czech Republic. But from the public diplomacy perspective, it was a very curious choice of a location for the U.S.-Russian arms control summit. By bringing the two leaders to Prague, the Russians managed to send a subtle signal, and perhaps a warning, to East and Central Europeans that the United States does not have a very long historical memory about the Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. The subtle message from the Kremlin was that just as it happened at the end of World War II, Russia and the U.S. can always find common ground at the expense of the defense and security needs of Eastern and Central Europe.

Many Poles interpret Obama’s actions as a further proof that he knows little about Poland’s history and even less about public diplomacy. While French President Sarkozy and German Chancellor Merkel also cancelled their plane trips to Poland, they did not participate in any public entertainment or sports events on the day of President Kaczynski’s funeral.

Assuming there were good safety reason for not making a plane trip to Poland, there were other options available to President Obama. He could have attended a special memorial mass at a Polish American church or visited the Polish Embassy in Washington. He did not, and one wonders whether public diplomacy experts at the White House, the State Department or the U.S. Embassy in Warsaw have made any recommendations. Even if the President of the United States lacks the necessary knowledge of history and diplomacy because of the poor level of education in American schools, there should have been at least one highly paid U.S. government bureaucrat to issue a warning to the President or his White House staff. Perhaps someone did and was ignored. We simply don’t know at this point. President Bush, who like Obama had also received poor education in world history, at least knew — or perhaps someone on his staff had told him — that it would not be a good idea after 9/11 to play golf while American soldiers are being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The terrible political and diplomatic damage from Obama’s insensitivity toward Poland, Israel and other U.S. allies has been done and cannot be easily reversed. When President Franklin Delano Roosevelt betrayed Poland during World War II, just before the 1944 presidential elections he had himself photographed with Polish American leaders in front of the map of Poland showing the country’s eastern frontier lands which he had already secretly promised to Stalin in exchange for the Soviet dictator’s vague promise to help with the war with Japan — the help that Stalin could not and would not give if it did not serve his own interests and that was not needed.

It’s doubtful that the Polish Americans can be fooled again, especially since the Obama White House and President Obama himself lack FDR’s sophistication in manipulating public opinion, although they certainly share his naive trust in Russia’s autocratic leaders. In fact, Obama is being manipulated by Putin and Medvedev. They are far more clever and sophisticated than the U.S. President when it comes to the knowledge and political use of history, public diplomacy and public opinion. The late President Kaczynski understood President Obama’s weak grasp of history. Shortly after the White House announced its decision to pull the missile defense system from Poland, the Polish President sat next to President Barack Obama 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.”

As a result of the Kremlin’s brilliant public relations strategy and Obama’s failure to grasp the importance of historical symbolism, Poland and Russia may develop closer ties while U.S.-Polish relations will weaken. While there is nothing wrong with Poland and Russia getting along better, Poland should not be forced to make painful and unnecessary compromises with the Kremlin simply because the U.S. has a president with a naive worldview reminiscent of Franklin Roosevelt’s assessment of Stalin.

See the link below how the Polish media has reacted to President Obama’s faux pas.

Warsaw Business Journal – Online Portal – wbj.pl

Further comment from TedLipien.com:

Polish media was upset not so much by Obama’s decision not to fly to Poland for President Kaczynski’s funeral as by his choice of using free time Sunday, the day of the funeral, to play golf. This was yet another public diplomacy disaster for Obama in Poland. Russia’s President Medvedev flew by plane to Poland to attend the funeral. Last year President Obama announced his decision to remove the planned U.S. missile defense system in Poland on the anniversary of the 1939 Soviet invasion of Poland.

See the original post:
What Yuri told Obama: engagement isn’t working

Link:
U.S. rejects Kremlin’s ’spheres of influence’, will continue twin-track strategy of engagement and fostering…