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

07 October 2009

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

(begin text)

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

STATEMENT BY SECRETARY CLINTON

Third Anniversary of Death of Anna Politkovskaya

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

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

(end text)

US State Department (America.gov)>>

Госсекретарь отмечает, что непривлечение преступников к ответственности ослабляет власть закона

ГОСУДАРСТВЕННЫЙ ДЕПАРТАМЕНТ США

Офис пресс-секретаря

7 октября 2009 года

ЗАЯВЛЕНИЕ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОГО СЕКРЕТАРЯ КЛИНТОН

Третья годовщина смерти Анны Политковской

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

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

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

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

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

Press release from Sen. Voinovich’s Senate office.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Garrette Silverman or Stephanie Sonksen

September 24, 2009 (202) 224-8609

SEN. VOINOVICH FLOOR SPEECH ON

OBAMA’S REPEAL OF EASTERN EUROPEAN

MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM

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

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

Floor Statement

U.S. Senator George Voinovich

“America’s Image in Eastern Europe”

September 24, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– END –

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

Download Free Photo – Вы можете скачать эту фотографию

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

Download Free Photo – Вы можете скачать эту фотографию

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

Download Free Photo – Вы можете скачать эту фотографию

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

See more photos on the White House website.

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

FreeMediaOnline.org, Free Media Online Blog, GovoritAmerika.us, Media analysis by Ted Lipien, August 21, 2009, San Francisco — A title of a recent report on the Voice of America Russian Service website caught my attention: “Сговор Сталина с Гитлером – «единственное средство самообороны»?” “Stalin’s Pact with Hitler – «The Only Means of Self-Defense»?”

The story posted in Russian was the VOA Russian Service translation of the English Service report from Moscow by Jonas Bernstein. When I checked the original English-language report, the title was different: “Russia Defends Stalin’s Deal with Hitler.” It was a well-written, objective and comprehensive story how the current leadership and nationalist extremists in Russia are trying to rewrite history by defending Stalin’s secret deal with Hitler that led to the start of World War II.

In the secret documents signed in Moscow by their foreign ministers, Hitler and Stalin had agreed to divide Poland and give the Soviet Union control of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and parts of Finland and Romania. Germany attacked Poland on September 1, 1939, and the attack by the Red Army followed on September 17.

The difference between the Russian and the English title of the VOA report seemed minor but could have a significant impact on an audience in Russia and presumably was chosen with some deliberation. “Russia Defends Stalin’s Deal with Hitler” suggests a neutral perspective. “Stalin’s Pact with Hitler – «The Only Means of Self-Defense»?” — a question asked on behalf of a U.S. Government-funded broadcasting station — gives a subtle measure of legitimacy to the Kremlin’s defense of the Hitler-Stalin Pact, even if the words «The Only Means of Self-Defense» are in quotes followed by a question mark. Behind the title of the VOA story on the Russian Service website was the statement of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, issued on August 17, saying it had declassified documents showing that the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was the Soviet Union’s “only available means of self-defense.”

While the VOA report itself does not in any way support the assertion that Stalin had no other choice but to become Hitler’s accomplice in attacking Poland and occupying other countries — in fact, it quotes extensively from those who hold the opposite view — the title used by VOA’s Russian Service shows that the Kremlin’s efforts to rewrite history are achieving at least some success, and not only among nationalists in Russia.

There may also be an additional explanation why an editor in Washington chose to use a title for the audience in Russia that is both provocative and seems to cater to the prejudices of post-communists and nationalists.

The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), a bipartisan Federal agency which manages VOA, has been pressuring the Russian Service journalists to increase their audience ratings, while at the same time it has been cutting their budget to pay for broadcasting initiatives in the Middle East and other projects awarded to private contractors. In 2008, the BBG had terminated all on-air VOA Russian-language radio programs, just 12 days before Russia launched a major military attack on the Republic of Georgia over a territorial dispute. (Later, the BBG had also eliminated on-air VOA Russian television news programs and forced the Russian Service to rely solely on the Internet for program delivery. VOA websites were completely crippled by a cyber attack for at least two full days during President Obama’s recent official visit to Russia. One short radio rebroadcast in Moscow was reinstituted by the BBG, but only after strong protests from VOA journalists and media freedom advocates.)

Blaming the BBG for editorial mistakes in how VOA journalists describe the history of World War II may seem far-fetched, but another BBG-managed broadcaster, Alhurra Television, caused a major scandal and drew anger of many members of Congress by airing extensive statements from Holocaust deniers. It was an apparent effort to make Alhurra programs more acceptable to those in the Middle East who do not believe the Holocaust is a historical fact. With its programming philosophy set by BBG members, their private sector consultants and neoconservatives in the Bush Administration, Alhurra has not managed to attract a large number of viewers. BBG policies had an equally disastrous impact on VOA’s Russian Service. Largely as a result of the BBG-imposed program cuts, VOA’s audience reach in Russia has declined 98% and is now estimated at only about 0.2% annually.

VOA Russian Service journalists are under enormous pressure to expand their Internet audience, which may also explain why they chose this particular title for the news story about the 70th anniversary of the outbreak of World War II. Never mind that it’s almost like asking whether Hitler’s attack on the Soviet Union or the Holocaust were also the only means of self-defense. After all, the Nazis claimed they were. Reporting about history at the VOA Russian Service has not been easy under the BBG’s “marry the mission to the market” programming philosophy.

But the Kremlin’s Foreign Intelligence Service has some reasons to cheer that their efforts to rehabilitate Stalin are having an impact. Even if it is only a title for a news story from the U.S. taxpayer-funded Voice of America, at least they managed to raise their defense of the Soviet dictator to a legitimate question.

Voice of America report from Moscow

Russia Defends Stalin’s Deal with Hitler
By Jonas Bernstein
Moscow
20 August 2009

Sunday, August 23, marks the 70th anniversary of the so-called Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact – the non-aggression treaty signed in 1939 by Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov and German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop. The pact included a secret protocol dividing Eastern and Central Europe into Nazi and Soviet spheres of influence. Days after it was signed, first German and then Soviet forces invaded Poland.

The anniversary’s approach has sparked a debate in Europe. Western governments condemn Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin as two equally murderous variants of totalitarianism. The Russian government calls that comparison a “distortion” of history.

On August 17, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service issued a statement saying it had declassified documents showing that the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was the Soviet Union’s “only available means of self-defense.”

The spy agency’s demarche was just the latest in a series of Russian government statements that critics say appear to defend Soviet dictator Josef Stalin and justify actions he took shortly before and during World War II.

In early May, Russian Emergency Situations Minister Sergei Shoigu introduced legislation in parliament that would make it a crime to deny the Soviet victory in World War II.

Later in May, President Dmitri Medvedev issued a decree setting up a presidential commission to counter what he called attempts to “falsify history.”

At a meeting in early July, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe passed a resolution designating August 23 – the anniversary of the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact – as a day of remembrance for the victims of both Stalinism and Nazism.

Russian delegates to the European security body walked out of the meeting, in protest. Russia’s Foreign Ministry denounced the OSCE resolution as “an attempt to distort history with political goals,” while Russia’s parliament called it a “direct insult to the memory of millions” of Soviet soldiers who, in the words of the parliament, “gave their lives for the freedom of Europe from the fascist yoke.”

Former independent Russian parliament Deputy Vladimir Ryzhkov says what he calls the “official” Russian position on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is “extremely strange.”

Ryzhkov asks why today’s Russia, which has a democratic constitution and new democratic legitimacy, should justify the division of Europe between Hitler and Stalin.

He says that this view is now included in Russian history text books and has caused “enormous moral damage” to Russia’s reputation, particularly in the countries of Eastern Europe that were the main victims of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Ryzhkov says the only explanation for the Russian leadership’s position on the issue is what he calls “sympathy for Stalin.”

Public opinion surveys suggest many ordinary Russians share at least some of their government’s views.

A poll conducted by the state-run VTsIOM agency, following the OSCE resolution condemning Stalinism and Nazism, found that 53 percent of the respondents across Russia viewed it negatively, while 11 percent viewed it positively and 21 percent viewed it neutrally. In addition, 59 percent of those polled said the resolution was aimed at undermining Russia’s authority in the world and diminishing its contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany.

Dmitry Furman of the Russian Academy of Science’s Institute of Europe calls the presidential commission to counter what it deems historical falsification an “idiotic undertaking” and a “very bad idea.” He also says Stalin’s government killed as many, or even more people than Hitler’s.

But, given the suffering Russians endured after Hitler turned on Stalin and invaded the Soviet Union, Furman says it is natural that many resist equating Stalinism and Nazism.

Furman says it is “very difficult psychologically” for Russians to put what they see as their “victors” in the Great Patriotic War, as they call World War II, on the same level with the vanquished Nazis.

Voice of America Report As Posted on the Russian Service Website

Сговор Сталина с Гитлером – «единственное средство самообороны»?

В воскресенье 23 августа исполняется 70 лет со дня заключения Пакта Молотова-Риббентропа. Речь идет о договоре о ненападении, подписанном в Москве народным комиссаром иностранных дел СССР Вячеславом Молотовым и министром иностранных дел Германии Иоахимом фон Риббентропом. К пакту был приложен секретный протокол о разделе Восточной и Центральной Европы на сферы влияния Советского Союза и нацистской Германии. Через неделю германский вермахт вторгся в Польшу с запада, а две недели спустя в Польшу вторглась с востока Красная армия.

Приближение годовщины пакта вызывает острые дискуссии. Западные правительства осуждают Гитлера и Сталина как вождей двух одинаково преступных форм тоталитаризма. Москва именует подобные сравнения «искажением» истории.

17 августа нынешнего года Служба внешней разведки РФ известила о рассекречивании документов 70-летней давности, призванных доказать, что заключение Пакта Молотова-Риббентропа было для СССР «единственным средством самообороны». Критики расценивают этот демарш российского разведывательного ведомства как очередной шаг Кремля, направленный на реабилитацию Сталина и оправдание его действий накануне и во время второй мировой войны.

В мае российский министр по чрезвычайным ситуациям Сергей Шойгу внес в Госдуму законопроект об уголовном наказании за отрицание победы СССР во второй мировой войне. Чуть позже президент Дмитрий Медведев учредил комиссию по борьбе с «фальсификацией истории».

В июне Организация по безопасности и сотрудничеству в Европе приняла резолюцию, объявляющую 23 августа днем памяти жертв сталинизма и нацизма. Российская делегация в знак протеста покинула заседание ОБСЕ. МИД РФ назвал резолюцию «попыткой исказить историю в политических целях», а Дума сочла ее «прямым оскорблением памяти миллионов» советских солдат, «отдавших жизнь за освобождение Европы от фашистского ига».

Существуют, однако, и другие мнения. По словам независимого российского парламентария Владимира Рыжкова «официальная» российская позиция в оценке пакта Молотова-Риббентропа звучит «крайне странно». Почему сегодняшняя Россия, имеющая демократическую конституцию, должна защищать раздел Европы между Сталиным и Гитлером, спрашивает он?

Как указывает Рыжков, подобные суждения включены в учебники, что наносит «огромный моральный ущерб» репутации России, особенно в странах Восточной Европы, ставших главными жертвами Пакта Молотова-Риббентропа. Единственным объяснением позиции российского руководства депутат Госдумы считает возможную «симпатию к Сталину».

Опросы показывают, что многие рядовые россияне разделяют, по крайней мере, некоторые оценки Кремля. Опрос, проведенный государственным агентством ВЦИОМ после принятия резолюции ОБСЕ, выявил, что 53% респондентов относятся к ней негативно, 11% – позитивно, а 21% – нейтрально. Кроме того, 59% опрошенных выразили убеждение, что резолюция нацелена на подрыв авторитета России в мире и преуменьшение ее вклада в разгром фашистской Германии.

Сотрудник Института Европы РАН Дмитрий Фурман назвал президентскую комиссию по борьбе с фальсификацией истории «идиотским мероприятием». По его словам при Сталине было убито не меньше, а, может быть, и больше людей, чем при Гитлере. Однако, учитывая страдания, перенесенные народами Советского Союза в годы гитлеровской оккупации, многим россиянам психологически трудно поставить себя – победителей в Великой Отечественной войне – на одну доску с побежденными фашистами.

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

Президент России>>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Russia] uses overt and covert means of economic warfare, ranging from energy blockades and politically motivated investments to bribery and media manipulation in order to advance its interests and to challenge the transatlantic orientation of Central and Eastern Europe.

An Open Letter to the Obama Administration from Central and Eastern Europe

We have written this letter because, as Central and Eastern European (CEE) intellectuals and former policymakers, we care deeply about the future of the transatlantic relationship as well as the future quality of relations between the United States and the countries of our region. We write in our personal capacity as individuals who are friends and allies of the United States as well as committed Europeans.

Our nations are deeply indebted to the United States. Many of us know firsthand how important your support for our freedom and independence was during the dark Cold War years. U.S. engagement and support was essential for the success of our democratic transitions after the Iron Curtain fell twenty years ago. Without Washington’s vision and leadership, it is doubtful that we would be in NATO and even the EU today.

We have worked to reciprocate and make this relationship a two-way street. We are Atlanticist voices within NATO and the EU. Our nations have been engaged alongside the United States in the Balkans, Iraq, and today in Afghanistan. While our contribution may at times seem modest compared to your own, it is significant when measured as a percentage of our population and GDP. Having benefited from your support for liberal democracy and liberal values in the past, we have been among your strongest supporters when it comes to promoting democracy and human rights around the world.

Twenty years after the end of the Cold War, however, we see that Central and Eastern European countries are no longer at the heart of American foreign policy. As the new Obama Administration sets its foreign-policy priorities, our region is one part of the world that Americans have largely stopped worrying about. Indeed, at times we have the impression that U.S. policy was so successful that many American officials have now concluded that our region is fixed once and for all and that they could “check the box” and move on to other more pressing strategic issues. Relations have been so close that many on both sides assume that the region’s transatlantic orientation, as well as its stability and prosperity, would last forever.

That view is premature. All is not well either in our region or in the transatlantic relationship. Central and Eastern Europe is at a political crossroads and today there is a growing sense of nervousness in the region. The global economic crisis is impacting on our region and, as elsewhere, runs the risk that our societies will look inward and be less engaged with the outside world. At the same time, storm clouds are starting to gather on the foreign policy horizon. Like you, we await the results of the EU Commission’s investigation on the origins of the Russo-Georgian war. But the political impact of that war on the region has already been felt. Many countries were deeply disturbed to see the Atlantic alliance stand by as Russia violated the core principles of the Helsinki Final Act, the Charter of Paris, and the territorial integrity of a country that was a member of NATO’s Partnership for Peace and the Euroatlantic Partnership Council -all in the name of defending a sphere of influence on its borders.

Despite the efforts and significant contribution of the new members, NATO today seems weaker than when we joined. In many of our countries it is perceived as less and less relevant – and we feel it. Although we are full members, people question whether NATO would be willing and able to come to our defense in some future crises. Europe’s dependence on Russian energy also creates concern about the cohesion of the Alliance. President Obama’s remark at the recent NATO summit on the need to provide credible defense plans for all Alliance members was welcome, but not sufficient to allay fears about the Alliance´s defense readiness. Our ability to continue to sustain public support at home for our contributions to Alliance missions abroad also depends on us being able to show that our own security concerns are being addressed in NATO and close cooperation with the United States

We must also recognize that America’s popularity and influence have fallen in many of our countries as well. Public opinions polls, including the German Marshall Fund’s own Transatlantic Trends survey, show that our region has not been immune to the wave of criticism and anti-Americanism that has swept Europe in recent years and which led to a collapse in sympathy and support for the United States during the Bush years. Some leaders in the region have paid a political price for their support of the unpopular war in Iraq. In the future they may be more careful in taking political risks to support the United States. We believe that the onset of a new Administration has created a new opening to reverse this trend but it will take time and work on both sides to make up for what we have lost.

In many ways the EU has become the major factor and institution in our lives. To many people it seems more relevant and important today than the link to the United States. To some degree it is a logical outcome of the integration of Central and Eastern Europe into the EU. Our leaders and officials spend much more time in EU meetings than in consultations with Washington, where they often struggle to attract attention or make our voices heard. The region’s deeper integration in the EU is of course welcome and should not necessarily lead to a weakening of the transatlantic relationship. The hope was that integration of Central and Eastern Europe into the EU would actually strengthen the strategic cooperation between Europe and America.

However, there is a danger that instead of being a pro-Atlantic voice in the EU, support for a more global partnership with Washington in the region might wane over time. The region does not have the tradition of assuming a more global role. Some items on the transatlantic agenda, such as climate change, do not resonate in the Central and Eastern European publics to the same extent as they do in Western Europe.

Leadership change is also coming in Central and Eastern Europe. Next to those, there are fewer and fewer leaders who emerged from the revolutions of 1989 who experienced Washington’s key role in securing our democratic transition and anchoring our countries in NATO and EU. A new generation of leaders is emerging who do not have these memories and follow a more “realistic” policy. At the same time, the former Communist elites, whose insistence on political and economic power significantly contributed to the crises in many CEE countries, gradually disappear from the political scene. The current political and economic turmoil and the fallout from the global economic crisis provide additional opportunities for the forces of nationalism, extremism, populism, and anti-Semitism across the continent but also in some our countries.

This means that the United States is likely to lose many of its traditional interlocutors in the region. The new elites replacing them may not share the idealism – or have the same relationship to the United States – as the generation who led the democratic transition. They may be more calculating in their support of the United States as well as more parochial in their world view. And in Washington a similar transition is taking place as many of the leaders and personalities we have worked with and relied on are also leaving politics.

And then there is the issue of how to deal with Russia. Our hopes that relations with Russia would improve and that Moscow would finally fully accept our complete sovereignty and independence after joining NATO and the EU have not been fulfilled. Instead, Russia is back as a revisionist power pursuing a 19th-century agenda with 21st-century tactics and methods. At a global level, Russia has become, on most issues, a status-quo power. But at a regional level and vis-a-vis our nations, it increasingly acts as a revisionist one. It challenges our claims to our own historical experiences. It asserts a privileged position in determining our security choices. It uses overt and covert means of economic warfare, ranging from energy blockades and politically motivated investments to bribery and media manipulation in order to advance its interests and to challenge the transatlantic orientation of Central and Eastern Europe.

We welcome the “reset” of the American-Russian relations. As the countries living closest to Russia, obviously nobody has a greater interest in the development of the democracy in Russia and better relations between Moscow and the West than we do. But there is also nervousness in our capitals. We want to ensure that too narrow an understanding of Western interests does not lead to the wrong concessions to Russia. Today the concern is, for example, that the United States and the major European powers might embrace the Medvedev plan for a “Concert of Powers” to replace the continent’s existing, value-based security structure. The danger is that Russia’s creeping intimidation and influence-peddling in the region could over time lead to a de facto neutralization of the region. There are differing views within the region when it comes to Moscow’s new policies. But there is a shared view that the full engagement of the United States is needed.

Many in the region are looking with hope to the Obama Administration to restore the Atlantic relationship as a moral compass for their domestic as well as foreign policies. A strong commitment to common liberal democratic values is essential to our countries. We know from our own historical experience the difference between when the United States stood up for its liberal democratic values and when it did not. Our region suffered when the United States succumbed to “realism” at Yalta. And it benefited when the United States used its power to fight for principle. That was critical during the Cold War and in opening the doors of NATO. Had a “realist” view prevailed in the early 1990s, we would not be in NATO today and the idea of a Europe whole, free, and at peace would be a distant dream.

We understand the heavy demands on your Administration and on U.S. foreign policy. It is not our intent to add to the list of problems you face. Rather, we want to help by being strong Atlanticist allies in a U.S.-European partnership that is a powerful force for good around the world. But we are not certain where our region will be in five or ten years time given the domestic and foreign policy uncertainties we face. We need to take the right steps now to ensure the strong relationship between the United States and Central and Eastern Europe over the past twenty years will endure.

We believe this is a time both the United States and Europe need to reinvest in the transatlantic relationship. We also believe this is a time when the United States and Central and Eastern Europe must reconnect around a new and forward-looking agenda. While recognizing what has been achieved in the twenty years since the fall of the Iron Curtain, it is time to set a new agenda for close cooperation for the next twenty years across the Atlantic.

Therefore, we propose the following steps:

First, we are convinced that America needs Europe and that Europe needs the United States as much today as in the past. The United States should reaffirm its vocation as a European power and make clear that it plans to stay fully engaged on the continent even while it faces the pressing challenges in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the wider Middle East, and Asia. For our part we must work at home in our own countries and in Europe more generally to convince our leaders and societies to adopt a more global perspective and be prepared to shoulder more responsibility in partnership with the United States.

Second, we need a renaissance of NATO as the most important security link between the United States and Europe. It is the only credible hard power security guarantee we have. NATO must reconfirm its core function of collective defense even while we adapt to the new threats of the 21st century. A key factor in our ability to participate in NATO’s expeditionary missions overseas is the belief that we are secure at home. We must therefore correct some self-inflicted wounds from the past. It was a mistake not to commence with proper Article 5 defense planning for new members after NATO was enlarged. NATO needs to make the Alliance’s commitments credible and provide strategic reassurance to all members. This should include contingency planning, prepositioning of forces, equipment, and supplies for reinforcement in our region in case of crisis as originally envisioned in the NATO-Russia Founding Act.

We should also re-think the working of the NATO-Russia Council and return to the practice where NATO member countries enter into dialogue with Moscow with a coordinated position. When it comes to Russia, our experience has been that a more determined and principled policy toward Moscow will not only strengthen the West’s security but will ultimately lead Moscow to follow a more cooperative policy as well. Furthermore, the more secure we feel inside NATO, the easier it will also be for our countries to reach out to engage Moscow on issues of common interest. That is the dual track approach we need and which should be reflected in the new NATO strategic concept.

Third, the thorniest issue may well be America’s planned missile-defense installations. Here too, there are different views in the region, including among our publics which are divided. Regardless of the military merits of this scheme and what Washington eventually decides to do, the issue has nevertheless also become — at least in some countries — a symbol of America’s credibility and commitment to the region. How it is handled could have a significant impact on their future transatlantic orientation. The small number of missiles involved cannot be a threat to Russia’s strategic capabilities, and the Kremlin knows this. We should decide the future of the program as allies and based on the strategic plusses and minuses of the different technical and political configurations. The Alliance should not allow the issue to be determined by unfounded Russian opposition. Abandoning the program entirely or involving Russia too deeply in it without consulting Poland or the Czech Republic can undermine the credibility of the United States across the whole region.

Fourth, we know that NATO alone is not enough. We also want and need more Europe and a better and more strategic U.S.-EU relationship as well. Increasingly our foreign policies are carried out through the European Union – and we support that. We also want a common European foreign and defense policy that is open to close cooperation with the United States. We are the advocates of such a line in the EU. But we need the United States to rethink its attitude toward the EU and engage it much more seriously as a strategic partner. We need to bring NATO and the EU closer together and make them work in tandem. We need common NATO and EU strategies not only toward Russia but on a range of other new strategic challenges.

Fifth is energy security. The threat to energy supplies can exert an immediate influence on our nations’ political sovereignty also as allies contributing to common decisions in NATO. That is why it must also become a transatlantic priority. Although most of the responsibility for energy security lies within the realm of the EU, the United States also has a role to play. Absent American support, the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline would never have been built. Energy security must become an integral part of U.S.-European strategic cooperation. Central and Eastern European countries should lobby harder (and with more unity) inside Europe for diversification of the energy mix, suppliers, and transit routes, as well as for tough legal scrutiny of Russia’s abuse of its monopoly and cartel-like power inside the EU. But American political support on this will play a crucial role. Similarly, the United States can play an important role in solidifying further its support for the Nabucco pipeline, particularly in using its security relationship with the main transit country, Turkey, as well as the North-South interconnector of Central Europe and LNG terminals in our region.

Sixth, we must not neglect the human factor. Our next generations need to get to know each other, too. We have to cherish and protect the multitude of educational, professional, and other networks and friendships that underpin our friendship and alliance. The U.S. visa regime remains an obstacle in this regard. It is absurd that Poland and Romania — arguably the two biggest and most pro-American states in the CEE region, which are making substantial contributions in Iraq and Afghanistan — have not yet been brought into the visa waiver program. It is incomprehensible that a critic like the French anti-globalization activist Jose Bove does not require a visa for the United States but former Solidarity activist and Nobel Peace prizewinner Lech Walesa does. This issue will be resolved only if it is made a political priority by the President of the United States.

The steps we made together since 1989 are not minor in history. The common successes are the proper foundation for the transatlantic renaissance we need today. This is why we believe that we should also consider the creation of a Legacy Fellowship for young leaders. Twenty years have passed since the revolutions of 1989. That is a whole generation. We need a new generation to renew the transatlantic partnership. A new program should be launched to identify those young leaders on both sides of the Atlantic who can carry forward the transatlantic project we have spent the last two decades building in Central and Eastern Europe.

In conclusion, the onset of a new Administration in the United States has raised great hopes in our countries for a transatlantic renewal. It is an opportunity we dare not miss. We, the authors of this letter, know firsthand how important the relationship with the United States has been. In the 1990s, a large part of getting Europe right was about getting Central and Eastern Europe right. The engagement of the United States was critical to locking in peace and stability from the Baltics to the Black Sea. Today the goal must be to keep Central and Eastern Europe right as a stable, activist, and Atlanticist part of our broader community.

That is the key to our success in bringing about the renaissance in the Alliance the Obama Administration has committed itself to work for and which we support. That will require both sides recommitting to and investing in this relationship. But if we do it right, the pay off down the road can be very real. By taking the right steps now, we can put it on new and solid footing for the future.

Valdas Adamkus Former President of the Republic of Lithuania
Martin Butora Former Ambassador of the Slovak Republic to the United States
Emil Constantinescu Former President of the Republic of Romania
Pavol Demes Former Minister of International Relations and Advisor to the President, Slovak Republic
Lubos Dobrovsky Former Defense Minister of the Czech Republic, former Ambassador to Russia
Matyas Eorsi Former Secretary of State of the Hungarian MFA
Istvan Gyarmati Ambassador, President of the International Centre for Democratic Transition in Budapest
Vaclav Havel Former President of the Czech Republic
Rastislav Kacer Former Ambassador of the Slovak Republic to the United States
Sandra Kalniete Former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Latvia
Karel Schwarzenberg Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Czech Republic
Michal Kovac Former President of the Slovak Republic
Ivan Krastev Chairman of the Centre for Liberal Strategies in Sofia, Bulgaria
Alexander Kwasniewski Former President of the Republic of Poland
Mart Laar Former Prime Minister of Estonia
Kadri Liik Director of the International Centre for Defense Studies in Tallinn, Estonia
Janos Martonyi Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hungary
Janusz Onyszkiewicz Former Vice-president of the European Parliament, former Defense Minister, Poland
Adam Rotfeld Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Poland
Alexandr Vondra Former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister, Czech Republic
Vaira Vike-Freiberga Former President of the Republic Latvia
Lech Walesa Former President of the Republic of Poland

July 16, 2009

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

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

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

16 июля 2009 года

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FreeMediaOnline.org,  Free Media Online Blog,  GovoritAmerika.us, Commentary by Ted Lipien, June 26, 2009, San Francisco – Ronald Reagan’s strong response to the imposition of martial law  against the independent Solidarity trade union in Poland in 1981 was distinctly different from President Barack Obama’s nuanced comments about the crackdown on demonstrators in Iran in the aftermath of the disputed Iranian presidential elections. While President Obama may have wanted to show his appreciation of the subtleties of Iranian politics, his public statements projected around the world a sense of confusion and weakness instead of showing firm American support for human rights and democracy.   

Intellectually, President Obama is right that the current situation in Iran is not the same as the communist crackdown on Solidarity in Poland in the 1980′s and may require a different policy response from the way President Reagan dealt with communist regimes. But the right course of improving communications with the Muslim world, set by President Obama’s speech in Cairo, was undermined by his initial refusal to speak out strongly against violations of human rights in Iran. He may have lost some of the earlier respect among supporters of democracy in the Middle East and weakened his position vis-a-vis America’s most determined enemies.

President Obama is right that President George W. Bush had made monumental mistakes by his unsophisticated and interventionist approach to the Muslim world while appeasing other authoritarian rulers, including Russia’s Vladimir Putin. Public diplomacy mistakes by the Bush Administration are too numerous to list, but U.S. international broadcasting initiatives during the last eight years serve as a good example. The Bush-appointed Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) eliminated all Voice of America (VOA) highly-respected Arabic news programs and created Radio Sawa and Alhurra TV, which are viewed in the Middle East and by independent experts in the U.S. as propaganda stations that lack journalistic standards, credibility and audience. Alhurra had broadcast unchallenged statements by Holocaust deniers at a conference in Tehran organized by no other than President Ahmadinejad. The BBG  had also eliminated Voice of America Russian radio programs just 12 days before the Russian army invaded the disputed parts of the Republic of Georgia. Democrats serving as members of the bipartisan BBG, including former BBG member Edward E. Kaufman, who has replaced Vice President Joe Biden as a U.S. Senator from Delaware, had been instrumental in helping the Bush Administration to make and implement many of the misguided decisions that have replaced objective journalism by the Voice of America with crude propaganda that damages America’s reputation and interests abroad.

President Obama is right in offering a new style of public diplomacy in the Middle East and throughout the world. He did not go to Alhurra to give his first interview targeted for the Middle East but chose an Arab TV network instead. Unfortunately, he still does not have around him enough good advisors who could help shape all of his public statements on human rights and freedom of expression issues, especially in times of crisis, so that he and his Administration do not appear at times as being intimidated by dictators of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s kind or appear naive and impulsive like President Bush.

As someone who was in charge of Voice of America (VOA) radio broadcasts to Poland during the Solidarity period, I agree that the two situations — the imposition of the martial law in Poland in December 1981 and the crackdown on demonstrations in Iran in June 2009 – are not identical. They both required, however, from the President of the United States a quick and decisive public response that would not be misinterpreted by foreign leaders and public opinion. Unfortunately, President Obama did not pass this latest test with flying colors.

Undoubtedly, he is a highly intelligent leader and hopefully capable of making right assessments and decisions. His reading of the situation in Iran may be in some ways correct, but his initial public response to this latest crisis was insufficient and quite wrong. He may have been told that workers and intellectuals in Iran are not as united against the religious regime as the Poles were against the communists in the 1980s. America was never seen by the vast majority of the Polish people as a threatening imperial power; Russia was. On the contrary,  most Poles saw America as an only major ally that could help them free themselves from communism and Soviet domination. And unlike the religious authorities in Iran, the Catholic Church and Pope John Paul II were on the side of striking workers, protesting intellectuals and students.

But while the situation in Iran in 2009 is in some ways different from Solidarity’s struggles in Poland in the 1980s, the need for moral support for pro-democracy Iranian reformers is now just as urgent as support for Lech Walesa was for the Reagan White House.  To achieve their goals,  the reform-minded, largely urban Iranians who are behind the street protests could learn from Solidarity’s success in Poland by sticking to their non-violent posture. They could also follow the example of Solidarity’s intellectual advisers, who had shaped the alliance with the Polish industrial workers, by making a similar effort in reaching out to the poor, highly religious, and anti-Western rural voters who tend to support President Ahmadinejad and the clerical regime.

Even in Poland, where conditions were more favorable to creating a democratic society, the solidarity-building process between intellectuals and workers was long and arduous. It took several decades before the Polish society finally united to a sufficient degree against the communist rule. Strong but not overly aggressive statements from President Reagan, and radio broadcasts by the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, had helped the Poles in their struggle for freedom.

President Obama’s speech in Cairo, offering a new approach in dealing with the Muslim world, was a great public diplomacy success and was  seen in the region as a new beginning. Unfortunately, public diplomacy experts at the White House and the State Department were not able to show a similar sophistication when a sudden crisis developed in Iran. President Obama’s overwhelming public concern how his comments in support for the protesting Iranians might be perceived by anti-Western, anti-democratic, and pro-clerical forces was clearly not the right response and opened him to criticism from his Republican opponents.

The White House could have taken a lesson or two from President Reagan on how to articulate a strong public diplomacy message that strikes the right balance between legitimate policy concerns and the impact of presidential statements on public opinion.  It’s good for the president of the United States to be aware of all the subtleties of foreign policy, but in some situations speaking publicly about them sends a wrong message to both supporters and enemies of democracy. Reagan knew how to use public comments to project a strong and confident image abroad while still being able to practice diplomacy when it served America’s interests and the cause of freedom.

In responding to the crackdown on Solidarity In 1981, President Reagan expressed America’s unqualified support for freedom without any concern that he would be criticized in Moscow and Warsaw for interfering in Poland’s domestic politics or trying to undermine the Polish communist regime’s close links with the Soviet Union. He was still able to engage later in successful negotiations with Soviet and Polish communist leaders when they were already critically weakened by America’s resolve to support freedom. Reagan was decisive but not intellectually inflexible like President George W. Bush. His was the right approach, and history has proved him right.

President Reagan’s Address to the Nation About Christmas and the Situation in Poland, December 23, 1981

I urge the Polish Government and its allies to consider the consequences of their actions. How can they possibly justify using naked force to crush a people who ask for nothing more than the right to lead their own lives in freedom and dignity? Brute force may intimidate, but it cannot form the basis of an enduring society, and the ailing Polish economy cannot be rebuilt with terror tactics.

Poland needs cooperation between its government and its people, not military oppression. If the Polish Government will honor the commitments it has made to human rights in documents like the Gdansk agreement, we in America will gladly do our share to help the shattered Polish economy, just as we helped the countries of Europe after both World Wars.

President Obama’s reaction to street demonstrations in Iran was markedly different in an interview with Harry Smith of CBS News, June 19, 2009.

CBS News Harry Smith: Let’s move on to the news of the day.  The Ayatollah Khamenei gave his speech today, gave his sermon.  He said that the election in Iran was, in fact, legitimate.  He said, “The street demonstrations are unacceptable.”  Do you have a message for those people in the street?

President Obama:  I absolutely do.  First of all, let’s understand that this notion that somehow these hundreds of thousands of people who are pouring into the streets in Iran are somehow responding to the West or the United States, that’s an old distraction that I think has been trotted out periodically.  And that’s just not going to fly.

CBS News Harry Smith: People in this country say you haven’t said enough, that you haven’t been forceful enough in your support for those people in the street, and which you say? 

President Obama: To which I say the last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States. That’s what they do. That’s what we’ve already seen. We shouldn’t be playing into that. There should be no distractions from the fact that the Iranian people are seeking to let their voices be heard.

Now, what we can do is bear witness and say to the world that the, you know, incredible demonstrations that we’ve seen is a testimony to, I think what Dr. King called the the arc of the moral universe. It’s long but it bends towards justice.

President Obama is right that the United States should not be seen as directly interfering in domestic Iranian politics, as this may hurt pro-democratic forces. But there is a big difference between actual interference and strong public statements in support of human rights abroad, especially in a crisis situation. Regardless of what President Obama says or does not say, Ahmadinejad’s supporters will still claim — as they have – that the United States is creating unrest in Iran. But if President Obama had taken a more Reagan-like approach in his public statements, while still maintaining diplomatic flexibility – supporters of human rights around the world would not be discouraged and enemies of freedom would not see him and the United States as confused by the events in Iran and weak against dictators. If the president’s public diplomacy advisers knew what they were doing, this would not have become an issue for the new administration. It is possible to have a sophisticated public diplomacy strategy in the Middle East without appearing too cautious in support of democracy and freedom of expression.

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. 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). In his book he describes the efforts of the KGB and other communist intelligence services to place spies in the Vatican and to influence reporting by Western journalists.

Wojtyla's Women by Ted Lipien

About FreeMediaOnline.org

FreeMediaOnline.org is a San Francisco-based nonprofit which supports media freedom worldwide. 

About GovoritAmerika.us

In December 2008, FreeMediaOnline.org launched a Russian-language web site — GovoritAmerika.us ГоворитАмерика.us  – which includes summaries of some of the more serious news and commentaries from multiple U.S. government and nongovernment sources. According to Ted Lipien, the web site is designed to compensate for the loss of information from the United States for Russian-speaking audiences due to program and budget cuts implemented by the Broadcasting Board of Governors. The web site, which includes links to VOA Russian Service news reports, is also designed to counter the BBG marketing strategy that has forced broadcasting entities to focus on entertainment programming and to avoid hard-hitting political reporting that might prevent local rebroadcasting or offend local officials. GovoritAmerika.us web site was developed without any public funding and is managed by volunteers. It is also hosted on LiveJournal.com.

BBG officials initially had told the VOA Russian Service that their requests to resume radio broadcasts were a “non-starter” even after Russia invaded Georgia. Only after weeks of protests, including reporting by FreeMediaOnline.org, the BBG finally allowed VOA to produce a short audio program for the Internet, updated only Monday through Friday. This program is rather difficult to find on the VOA website. We made it available for easier access and listening on the GovoritAmerika.us website managed by FreeMediaOnline.org.

Kremlin extends grip on reporters, Internet, media advocacy group reports

Washington — Growing restrictions on the print and electronic press in Russia are reminiscent of the Kremlin’s tight control of media during the Soviet period, according to a new report from Freedom House.

“Media freedom continued to decline in 2008, with the Kremlin relying on Soviet-style media management to facilitate a sensitive political transition as well as deflecting responsibility for widespread corruption and political violence,” the report said.

Freedom House, the nearly 70-year-old U.S.-based nongovernmental organization dedicated to research on democracy and human rights, issued on May 1 its latest report, concluding that press freedom globally continues to decline. The biggest declines are concentrated in Russia and other former Soviet Union countries, marking what the report calls the “steady closing of what had previously been a much freer media space.”

Legal pressure and attempts to control broadcast media outlets have created a political landscape where the ability of Russian citizens to make informed choices has been compromised, the report said. U.S. State Department (America.gov)>>

Выбор ГоворитАмерика.us GovoritAmerika.us. Вы можете скопировать и использовать эту статью. Подписка на рассылку ГоворитАмерика.us.

Download Free Photo – Вы можете скачать эту фотографию

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

Download Free Photo – Вы можете скачать эту фотографию

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

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

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

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

The congressional resolution recognizes Conover and Voice of America for their “joint contribution toward spreading the language of Jazz and American cultural diplomacy.”

Conover called jazz “the music of freedom.” He began broadcasting in 1955, at a time when many Eastern European countries banned the musical style as dangerous and subversive. But his shows were extremely popular and an estimated 100 million people heard his broadcasts. Read more on the Voice of America website.

Портал ГоворитАмерика.us: Новые фотографии для Вас – FREE Photos – Конгресс США принял резолюцию, в которой 25 апреля объявлено «Днем Уиллиса Коновера» в память о легендарном ведущем джазовых программ «Голоса Америки».

Читайте больше в сообщении “Голоса Америки”.

Download Free Photo – Вы можете скачать эту фотографию

With Louis Armstrong at VOA (1955). Read more on the Voice of America website.

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

• Central and Eastern Europe/Former Soviet Union: The region suffered the biggest drop in press freedom of any region, with journalists murdered in Bulgaria and Croatia and assaulted in Bosnia. Russia’s score declined with the judiciary unwilling to protect journalists from attacks, as well as the frequent targeting of independent media by regulators.

Freedom House>>

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

GovoritAmerika.us

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

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

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

GovoritAmerika.us

Media rights activists comment on World Press Freedom Day

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

View U.S. Embassy in Prague Photo Gallery

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

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

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

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

Obama Should Highlight Safety of Activists in Talks with Medvedev

The Russian authorities should investigate the violent attack against Lev Ponomarev, a prominent Russian human rights defender, nine international human rights organizations said today. Ponomarev, 67, was attacked and seriously injured by several unidentified assailants late on the night of March 31, 2009, outside his apartment building in Moscow. The organizations – the Andrei Sakharov Foundation, Amnesty International USA, Freedom House, Frontline Defenders, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, the International League for Human Rights, International Memorial Society, and the Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights – called on US President Barack Obama and other leaders meeting with President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia at the G-20 gathering in London to highlight the need to bring Ponomarev’s attackers to justice and to ensure an end to the growing number of attacks on human rights activists in Russia.

Хьюман Райтс Вотч>>

Выбор ГоворитАмерика.us GovoritAmerika.us. Вы можете скопировать и использовать эту статью.

 FreeMediaOnline.org & Free Media Online Blog Commentary by Ted Lipien, March 25, 2009, San Francisco –  Miro Dobrovodsky, one of the best journalists who came to the U.S. from Central and Eastern Europe during the Cold War to escape media censorship in their native countries, sent me an email pointing out that the process of silencing the Voice of America had started several years before the latest actions of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG)  aimed at further outsourcing and privatizing of U.S. international broadcasting.  His email was a reminder that Russia, Georgia, and Ukraine are only among the latest countries, to which VOA broadcasts were targeted by the BBG for elimination so that U.S. taxpayers’ money could flow more easily to private contractors and the private Alhurra Television network for the Middle East favored by BBG members, both Republicans and Democrats.

The BBG’s marketing strategy in the Muslim world has already been declared a failure in an academic study and by many independent journalists and Middle East experts. President Obama wisely avoided Alhurra in sending his first televised message to Arabic-speaking audiences. (Among other scandals, Alhurra Television gave extensive coverage to statements by Holocaust deniers who met at an international conference in Tehran.)

Miro reminded us that before the BBG took VOA radio broadcasts to Russia and Ukraine off the air last year — an action that in Russia caused an unprecendented 98% decline in annual audience reach from 10.3% in 2007 to 0.2% in 2009 (est.) –  the bipartisan board several years earlier had ended VOA broadcasts to the three Baltic countries (Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia) and seven other Central and East European nations. They were among the first victims of the BBG’s intense dislike of the Voice of America and its mission of representing America to the world in a serious, objective and authoritative manner.

In their eagerness to please neoconservative ideologues ignorant and disdainful of Arab and Islamic culture, BBG members were not really concerned who would credibly speak for America in the Middle East or anywhere else, and if they were, they had absolutely no idea what works and what does not outside of their narrow Washington and commercial perspective. As a result of their actions, VOA could not offer a platform to present President Obama’s first message to the Arab audience because — as incredible as it may sound — the Voice of America no longer has any Arabic-language programs. BBG members made sure that all such VOA programs were eliminated. They should have known but were unable to comprehend that Alhurra, as designed by them, could not possibly be a credible news source in the Middle East.

The Voice of America became a target for the BBG because it was subject to far more stringent federal regulations and journalistic standards than the privatized broadcasters also being funded by U.S. taxpayers. Contractors and associates of BBG members could not only find better employment opportunities at these private entities than at the Voice of America but, with only some exceptions, these private broadcasters were also far less likely to resist simplistic marketing and propaganda ideas generated by the BBG members themselves.

Miro Dobrovodsky and other East European journalists at VOA got a bitter taste of the BBG’s strategies and marketing ideas several years before they were used against VOA services broadcasting to Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, and several other countries. This is what Miro wrote in his email:

“I’m sure some overactive bureaucrats will soon delete from VOA servers everything remaining from its past. They have already deleted almost everything on servers…, including some historically important files, both Czech & Slovak. And Polish. And Hungarian. And Baltic languages. And Slovene. Perhaps Russian and Ukrainian. You name it. …Norman Pattiz’s followers must look forward, not backwards. Amen.”

Norman Pattiz is a former BBG member who was instrumental in pushing for the creation of private broadcasting to the Middle East and the elimination of many VOA broadcasting services. Another former BBG member, Edward E. Kaufman, now a U.S. Senator from Delaware, led the effort to end VOA radio programs to Russia, Ukraine, and Georgia. Ironically, they are both Democrats and friends of Vice President Joe Biden. But the Republican BBG members, with only one exception, eagerly supported Mr. Pattiz’s vision of privatized broadcasting to the Muslim world and the assault on the Voice of America broadcasts. VOA Russian-language radio programs were taken off the air 12 days before Russia’s armed forces invaded Georgia last summer.

It is clear from this 2004 Voice of America report about Miro Dobrovodsky that journalists like him were not only highly respected by their overseas audiences but were also effective in establishing a dialogue with the local media and were able to accurately present American views and values. Many of the privatized broadcasters favored by the BBG are now based overseas.  Some of them, like Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), operate now in part from a bureau in Moscow located within a close reach of the Kremlin’s secret police — a problem that the BBG has chosen to ignore when it made its decision to end VOA radio to Russia from Washington. Like Alhurra, RFE/RL is also trying to please its audience and the BBG’s executive staff which tells them to focus on generating higher ratings despite the Kremlin’s largely effective campaign to restrict rebroadcasts of RFE/RL, VOA, BBC, DW, and RFI programs in Russia and to silence journalists who dare to question some of the abuses of power by Prime Minister Putin and President Medvedev. RFE/RL was criticized last year by a Russian human rights organization for giving extensive airtime to a Russian politician known for his racist views and verbal attacks on immigrants. The group warned that such broadcasts encourage violence.

Such compromises in pursuing higher ratings at the cost of journalistic and ethical values would have been unacceptable to VOA journalists like Miro Dobrovodsky.  I’m glad that this 2004 VOA report about his journalistic career has been saved from the delete button of the BBG bureaucrats. FreeMediaOnline.org was also able to save recordings of the last VOA on-air radio programs to Russia and Ukraine. We have also developed a Russian-language web site, GovoritAmerika.us, which offers news analysis from multiple U.S. government and nongovernment sources to compensate for the budget cuts and restrictions imposed on VOA by the BBG. The website is run by volunteers and receives no public funding.

 ГоворитАмерика.us – Всесторонний Анализ Новостей из США

The following is a Voice of America report.

Miroslav Dobrovodsky

 The Voice of America in late February [2004] ceased broadcasting in ten East European languages: Bulgarian, Estonian, Czech, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Rumanian, Slovenian and Slovak. Today on New American Voices, Miro Dobrovodsky, a journalist who spent 15 years directing VOA’s broadcasts to former Czechoslovakia and later to Slovakia, looks back on the work of his service, and on his own journey from Slovakia to America.

Miro Dobrovodsky, a big, burly man whose square face is framed by curly red hair and a greying red beard, says he has no doubt that VOA’s broadcasts contributed to the Velvet Revolution which brought down communism in Czechoslovakia in 1989.

Receiving VOA Excellence in Programming Awards

“Oh, definitely. Definitely. Everybody says so. We even got awards from Slovakia. I personally got the Silver Medal of Freedom from the Slovak President because of what the Voice of America did. We kept people aware that not only something different is possible, but there are people already working for it.”

In its broadcasts in Slovak to what until the so-called “Velvet Divorce” of 1993 was Czechoslovakia, Miro Dobrovodsky says VOA’s greatest contribution was providing news – news not only about what was happening in the world, but in the country itself. Under communist rule, the press was in the service of the state, and barred from reporting information about dissenting views or the activities of dissidents. So it fell to international broadcasters like Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and others to provide the other side of the picture: the protests, the charters, the petitions in support of human rights and freedom.

Czech President and former dissident Vaclav Havel thanking VOA

“There were signatories for freedom. At that time, that was the kind of journalism… Under normal circumstances, it is not news if you are reading 25 names. But behind the Iron Curtain, if you read twenty-five names of people who had signed something against the regime, it was hot stuff, and a major story.”

To illustrate the importance of VOA’s news to the Slovak and Czech audiences, Mr. Dobrovodsky quotes a friend who returned from a visit to Bratislava, the capital of Slovakia, when it was still under the communist regime. His friend recalled that as he walked through the city night, a familiar tune – VOA’s old “Yankee Doodle” station I.D. – caught his ear:

As a young reporter in Bratislava, ca. 1966

“He said that he was walking in a new quarter of town, high-rises, you know, and at 9 PM he heard Yankee Doodle in stereo. And I said to him that we aren’t broadcasting in stereo. And he says, ‘No, no, no, but it’s August, every window is open, and when you hear it from a thousand windows, even quietly, it sounds like Yankee Doodle in stereo.’”

Journalism has been Miro Dobrovodsky’s life-long passion. He started writing at 13, and in his teens became the movie reviewer for a local weekly in northern Slovakia. His plans to study journalism were thwarted initially because his father was not a communist party member. Eventually he did graduate from Bratislava University’s Faculty of Journalism, and found a job in one of Slovakia’s foremost news magazines, Zivot. After some professional ups and downs, brought on by his own refusal to join the communist party, Mr. Dobrovodsky found himself again reporting for Zivot during what became known as the Prague Spring of 1968 – the short period of liberalization under Communist Party boss Alexander Dubcek.

“So we started very aggressively writing about subjects which over here, in the western world, are normal – to be critical even of the party, to be critical of local government. Until then it was taboo, this kind of subject.”

The Prague Spring ended on August 21, 1968, when Soviet troops invaded Czechoslovakia and brought liberalization to a bloody end. For two weeks, Mr. Dobrovodsky edited an underground newspaper, publishing news, pictures, and statements about what was happening in the country. He believed it was just a matter of time before the state police arrested him, so when the border to Austria opened, he fled to the West with his wife and three small children. Mr. Dobrodovsky spent several years as a refugee in Canada, where he found work as a photographer, in an oil refinery, on a car assembly line, and finally in the Slovak service of Radio Canada International. Eventually he was hired by the Voice of America and moved to Washington.

At VOA, Miro Dobrovodsky says, he found satisfying work in all aspects of journalism. He reported on news events, interviewed newsmakers, emceed programs, maintained contact with colleagues in Slovakia and other countries, participated in training a new generation of Slovak journalists, developed a network of affiliated FM stations in Slovakia that rebroadcast the VOA Slovak programs. And though he notes that the media situation in Slovakia and other East European countries has much improved, he still regrets VOA’s decision to end its broadcasts to this part of the world.

Interviewing Alexander Dubcek

“When one is following their newspapers, their journalism, they… as we all know, each story may have different pegs, or different ideas, I mean one story can illustrate many different points. And it’s still true. Nobody’s lying, not even them. For example, now when we’re talking about Iraq and Afghanistan and Al Qaeda and all that stuff, most of the stories over there they are going after casualties, and to put some, I feel, negative light on the United States. And not necessarily to pick up what is important from our point of view. In other words, we can write two lines, or seven lines, and completely differently – and this is what VOA was doing: adding to their story, our story. And it is not opinion, it is not propaganda, it’s just a different point of view, and a different mirror.”

Voice of America broadcaster Miro Dobrovodsky, who headed VOA’s Czechoslovak and later Slovak services during almost two decades of tumultuous and historic change in his native country.

CPJ’s Impunity Index spotlights countries where journalists are slain and killers go free

New York, March 23, 2009 — The already murderous conditions for the press in Sri Lanka and Pakistan deteriorated further in the past year, the Committee to Protect Journalists has found in its newly updated Impunity Index, a list of countries where journalists are killed regularly and governments fail to solve the crimes. Colombia, historically one of the world’s deadliest nations for the press, improved as the rate of murders declined and prosecutors won important recent convictions. “We’re distressed to see justice worsen in places such as Sri Lanka and Pakistan. Our findings indicate that the failure to solve journalist murders perpetuates further violence against the press,” said Joel Simon, CPJ executive director. “Countries can get off this list of shame only by committing themselves to seeking justice.”
RUSSIA

Since 1999, 16 journalists have been murdered in retaliation for reporting on official corruption, unrest in the North Caucasus republics, and organized crime nationwide. All but one case has gone unsolved. As he took office in 2008, President Dmitry Medvedev promised that attacks against journalists would be investigated and prosecuted. Nevertheless, authorities have failed to obtain convictions in even high-profile killings such as the 2004 murder of Forbes editor Paul Klebnikov and the 2006 slaying of investigative reporter Anna Politkovskaya.
Impunity Index Rating: 0.106 unsolved journalist murders per 1 million inhabitants.
Last year: Ranked 9th with a rating of 0.098.

Committee to Protect Journalists>>

New York, March 20, 2009–Russian authorities should thoroughly investigate the March 12 beating of Maksim Zolotarev, an editor at the independent newspaper Molva Yuzhnoye Podmoskovye in the town of Serpukhov, Moscow Region, the Committee to Protect Journalists said today.

Committee to Protect Journalists>>

The commentary was written to show that in a flagrant disregard for U.S. foreign policy and human rights interests,  the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) nearly killed the Russian Service and other VOA broadcasting units. Due to the BBG’s actions, the Voice of America no longer has any Arabic-language programs and its broadcasts to many countries have been silenced. The BBG prevents the Russian Service from broadcasting live radio and TV and deprives it of resources to do any kind of serious reporting work, even for the Internet.

VOA sources tell FreeMediaOnline.org that the Service is barely able to assign one journalist to work an eight hour shift on weekends and can spare at most two or three to work the evening shift only Monday through Friday.  Journalistic positions remain unfilled, the service has no director, and the manager in charge of Internet programming  does not speak Russian and has no experience in Russian affairs.

FreeMediaOnline.org was told that the service had no money to send a reporter with Secretary Clinton. VOA Russian Service journalists cannot broadcast live radio and TV programs and therefore cannot cover live news conferences — all because of the BBG-imposed restrictions. VOA English Service has also been deprived of resources and is unable to provide extensive coverage of Russia and U.S.-Russian relations.

FreeMediaOnline.org has developed a special website, GovoritAmerika.us - ГоворитАмерика.us, in an attempt to help VOA’s Russian Service distribute their limited output and to provide additional U.S.-Russia-related news and analysis from various other sources in the United States to compensate for the restrictions placed on VOA by the BBG. None of it is sufficient, however, to repair the damage stemming from the BBG’s actions.

As FreeMediaOnline.org had predicted, the Internet-only strategy, forced on on the Russian Service by the BBG, has caused its annual audience reach to drop from 7.3% (2007) to 0.2% (est.2009) — a staggering and historically unprecedented 98% decline. All other major international broadcasters, including the BBC World Service, managed to hold on to their audiences in Russia in 2008 despite Mr. Putin’s restrictive media policies. None followed the BBG’s lead in completely terminating on-air Russian-language radio and TV broadcasts. What Mr. Putin could not fully achieve, the BBG did it for him. The United States no longer has a credible voice in Russia.

On top of that, BBG officials produced market research showing that Russian audiences like Mr. Putin, don’t want to hear criticism of human rights abuses, and want less politics. VOA Russian Service journalists were told to be less critical and focus more on nonpolitical Internet reporting that would attract more visitors to their site . This is an example of the total misunderstanding of VOA’s mission and the reasons for the public funding for U.S. international broadcasting.

The VOA Russian Service has been starved of resources, given an impossible task and set up to fail, but the BBG and the VOA management would rather blame a team of dedicated journalists rather than the officials who ended VOA radio broadcasts to Russia just 12 days before the Russian invasion of Georgia and refused to resume them.

Here are some excerpts from a note sent today by a VOA Russian Service broadcaster:

We are accused of bad editorial judgement, poor quality of our reporting and all other possible sins. Never mind that we are starved to death financially and in other resources including manpower, and literally barred from the air.

….management WANTED us to report more on culture because “independent monitors” in Russia said so in the program review.

How much of further damage undermining the Russian Service can we endure? I don’t know…

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

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

U.S. Embassy in Moscow>>

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

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

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

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

U.S. State Department>>

Международный женский день

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

Посольствo США в Москве>>

Ms. Veronika Marchenko (Russia)

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

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

U.S. State Department>>

But even the low figure of 2.5% does not reflect the whole severity of the decline since it represents VOA audience for the whole of 2008 and not VOA’s current reach in Russia. FreeMediaOnline.org, a San Francisco-based media freedom nonprofit,  estimates that the annual reach for VOA in Russia is now well below 1 percent.

According to FreeMediaOnline.org president Ted Lipien,  the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), the agency in charge of VOA, is to blame for causing a 98% loss of audience in just one year. Lipien said that BBG’s actions have caused hundreds of thousands of U.S. taxpayer dollars to be wasted at a time when audiences in Russia are faced with increased media censorship and need access to objective news and opinions from the United States. 

With the elimination by the BBG of on-air VOA radio and TV for Russia in the second half of last year, FreeMediaOnline.org estimates the total audience since August/September 2008 to be not much higher than 0.2 percent. InterMedia — the firm which conducted the survey – reported 0.2% as past year’s reach of VOA Russian Service website. InterMedia also reported that only a very small percentage of former VOA Russian radio listeners and TV viewers are visiting VOA website.

From the InterMedia market media report: “International Broadcasting in Russia,”  December 2008:

VOA Russian [Service] stopped airing radio and TV programs by September 2008 (video and audio segments are still aired by a small number of local stations); Internet is Golos Ameriki’s [VOA Russian Service] principal focus for reaching audiences in Russia. This caused a drop in total annual reach for Golos Ameriki from 10.3 percent in 2007 to 2.5 percent in 2008. Past-year reach for VOA’s golosameriki.us Internet site was 0.2 percent.[Emphasis added by FreeMediaOnline.org.] Other international broadcasters were able to maintain their reach, with Radio Svoboda [Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL)] reaching 1.0 percent of Russians weekly and 3.2 percent annually; BBC reaching 0.8 percent weekly and 3.3 percent annually; and DW [the German broadcaster] reaching 0.7 percent weekly and 2.0 annually. As with Golos Ameriki, [VOA Russian Service] only a very small portion of this reach can currently be attributed to the websites. 

In late July 2008, just twelve days before the Russian army invaded parts of Georgia in a territorial dispute,  the BBG took all VOA  Russian-language radio programs off the air and later canceled VOA Russian-language TV programs. These decisions were made without any public announcements and implemented despite protests from members of Congress, VOA journalists, and human rights organizations.

The subsequent tremendous drop in audience size (98% in just one year — an unprecedented loss of audience for an existing  media service in the history of international broadcasting) can be attributed almost entirely to decisions made by the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), a small group of presidentially-appointed officials representing both major political parties and their executive staff who manage U.S.-funded broadcasts for overseas audiences.  Critics of the BBG’s actions argue that these decisions have deprived VOA journalists of their ability to counter censorship in Russia by making it impossible for VOA to use multiple program delivery platforms and media products at a critical time.

VOA and other Western international broadcasters have experienced a steady loss of audience reach in Russia over a number of years as a result of the Kremlin’s restrictive media policies. But according to Ted Lipien, president of FreeMediaOnline.org, the sudden multifold  drop in 2008 was a direct result of actions taken by U.S. government officials and cannot be attributed to any new restrictions by the Russian authorities.  Also confirming that the BBG is to blame for the sudden loss of VOA audience in Russia  was an observation in the InterMedia report that ”other international broadcasters were able to maintain their reach” last year.

Former BBG chairman,  James K. Glassman – known for his neoconservative views, support for privatization of U.S. international broadcasting assets, and great enthusiasm for the use of Internet –  personally rejected urgent requests from VOA journalists who pleaded with him last August to allow them to resume radio broadcasts to Russia and the war zone in Georgia.

BBG officials justified their actions by claiming that VOA would be in a better position to overcome Russian government media censorship if it concentrated its programming efforts exclusively on the Internet. FreeMediaOnline.org and others repeatedly warned the BBG that this strategy was extremely naive and would reward Mr. Putin’s censorship of independent media. The same critics predicted a drastic drop in audience size for VOA if the BBG implemented its plan. They also pointed out that the BBG plan called for spending money on needless projects benefiting private Internet contractors while the Russian Service would be deprived of substantive Internet content previously generated from radio and TV programs.  Read FreeMediaOnline.org report “Model Interactive Website Touted As Replacement for Voice of America Radio to Russia Attracts No Comments from Users”

This is how in an internal memo “VOA Russian Options Paper,”  written in 2008, government bureaucrats inspired by the BBG’s marketing strategies, boasted about their ability to substantially increase VOA audience size in Russia using only the Internet:

Based on the situation in Georgia and the separatist territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, VOA has investigated options to reach audiences in Russia and neighboring countries. While options exists for reaching audiences through traditional broadcast methods — AM/FM, shortwave, and television — data indicate the growing market for reaching our target audience is in new media.

FreeMediaOnline.org sent a critique of the Internet-only strategy to the BBG, but a former BBG member, Edward E. Kaufman, who is now a Democratic Senator from Delaware, reportedly blocked an effort  by another Board member to hold a vote on resuming VOA radio broadcasts to Russia. Kaufman, another Board member Jeff Hirschberg, and the BBG executive director Jeffrey Trimble are believed to have initiated the move to deprive VOA of radio and TV presence in Russia in order to benefit Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Jeff Hirschberg and Jeffrey Trimble, who was formerly acting president of RFE/RL, have personal links with RFE/RL managers in Moscow and Prague, while Senator Kaufman may have supported the move because RFE/RL is incorporated in Delaware. His former boss, Vice President Biden, was also known to be a strong supporter of the private broadcaster during and after the Cold War. Trimble and most BBG members ignored warnings that by establishing a large presence in Russia after the Cold War, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty has exposed its reporters, who are Russian citizens, to intimidation and blackmail by the Russian secret police. This was not seen as a problem immediately after the end of the Cold War but after Mr. Putin’s rise to power (he is a former KGB officer) is viewed as a serious threat to RFE/RL’s journalistic independence. Read FreeMediaOnline.org report Radio Liberty Russian managers put a positive spin on Putin’s comments about the murder of a pro-democracy journalist 

 VOA’s audience reach in Russia had been previously reduced over time due to the Russian secret police interference with the affiliate stations using VOA programs but never suffered a similar one-time loss, not even from major increases of jamming of shortwave radio signals during the Cold War.  FreeMediaOnline.org had warned that eliminating VOA radio and TV in Russia would be harmful to media freedom and would send a wrong signal to the Kremlin and human rights activists.

While all major Western international broadcasters have been increasing their Internet presence, none followed the BBG’s course on relying exclusively on the Internet in Russia and dropping both radio and TV. Ted Lipien said that a proper response to the growing media censorship in Russia should have been an expansion of the number of delivery platforms rather than their reduction to a single one. Before leaving public service, he was an acting associate director of the Voice of America. To compensate for restrictions and reductions in VOA output, FreeMediaOnline.org has launched a volunteer-run GovoritAmerica.us website, which compiles Russian-language news and analysis about the United States and U.S.-Russian relations.

Journalists working in the VOA Russian Service also don’t see BBG’s actions as designed to help them but rather as being part of the same strategy that resulted in the dismantling and eventual total elimination of VOA Arabic-language programs as well VOA broadcasts in other languages. After they had created Radio Sawa and Alhurra Television, BBG members made sure that VOA no longer had any Arabic-language programs. Some VOA Russian Service journalists suspect that the BBG executive staff purposely mislead the Board about the benefits of the Internet-only option in order to justify later a complete elimination of VOA broadcasts to Russia citing low audience ratings, which they knew would result from their actions.

One of many nonprofit foreign policy organizations, which believes the BBG has seriously mismanaged U.S. international broadcasting, is the highly-respected Public Diplomacy Council. The organization, which includes former diplomats, academics and other foreign policy experts, has called on President elect Obama and Congress to take urgent action in reforming publicly-funded U.S. international broadcasting. The Council blames the BBG for ignoring strategically important target areas such as Russia, the Balkans, India and the Western Hemisphere. The Council noted that the Broadcasting Board of Governors “has taken special aim at the Voice of America” by abolishing the VOA Arabic Service and reducing its broadcasts in English to the Middle East and other regions.  The Council also criticized the BBG’s decision to terminate all VOA radio broadcasts in Russian shortly before Russia’s military attack on Georgia last summer. Read FreeMediaOnline.org report: Public Diplomacy Experts Urge Obama to Stop the Broadcasting Board of Governors from Silencing the Voice of America

Many VOA journalists, NGO media freedom activists, and former U.S. diplomats believe that the BBG, dominated by an alliance of Republican neoconservatives and Democrats who joined forces in formulating and supporting ill-conceived outreach programs vis-a-vis the Muslim world such as Alhurra and Radio Sawa,  is determined to continue expanding privatization of U.S. broadcasting resources. The latest push, which affected Russia and Ukraine and threatened Georgia, came between July and December, in the waning months of the Bush Administration, and may have been purposely orchestrated and timed to present the Obama Administration with a fait accompli.

Not satisfied with killing VOA radio in Russia, on December 31, 2008, the BBG terminated VOA radio programs to Ukraine. This action was taken just hours before Russia stopped the flow of natural gas supplies through Ukraine when that country was on the verge of a major economic and political crisis. The Ukrainian crisis has since then gotten much worse and  now seriously threatens democratic gains and pro-Western foreign policy of the government in Kiev.

Critics have been warning for years that the Broadcasting Board of Governors is outsourcing vital journalistic and public diplomacy functions to private entities and contractors who – as a direct result of BBG’s marketing policies – are unable and unwilling to reflect American opinions and values and lack basic journalistic skills. (BBG-created private broadcaster Alhurra Television for the Middle East aired comments by Holocaust deniers and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty gave extensive airtime to extremist Russian politicians known for their racist views.)  A study by researchers for the University of Southern California, who conducted a review of Alhurra broadcasts, concluded that “The quality of Alhurra’s journalism is substandard on several levels.“

Critics also accuse the BBG of ignoring such problems with these private broadcasters and of deliberately trying to dismantle the Voice of America, which operates under strict U.S. government fiscal controls and enjoys journalistic independence under a Congressional Charter. The Charter requires VOA to adhere to high journalistic standards and to accurately and objectively represent a broad spectrum of American views. According to critics, BBG officials prefer to steer money to private broadcasters, such as Alhurra and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, because these stations can be more easily controlled. They can also be used to benefit their friends and supporters with high-paying positions and private contracts.

According to these critics, the BBG executive staff knew from previous market research that  VOA’s annual reach on the Internet for its Russian-language programs in Russia was well below one percent. (Weekly reach for VOA Russian website is far lower: 0.03%.) Despite of this data, BBG officials made widely exaggerated predictions and ignored obvious warnings that the Russian security services are fully capable of blocking and manipulating the Internet. RFE/RL was not ordered by the BBG to drop its shortwave radio broadcasts and managed to hold on to its radio audience, as did the BBC  and Deutsche Welle Russian-language services — another proof that the sudden 98% drop in VOA’s reach in Russia was orchestrated by the BBG and its executive staff.

Ted Lipien of FreeMediaOnline.org said that the actions of BBG officials that have obliterated VOA audience in Russia not only harm media freedom but represent  a monumental waste of U.S. taxpayers’ money. “In just one year, these BBG officials and their staff have completely wasted 98% of a VOA broadcasting service budget,  making a free gift of  hundreds of thousands of U.S. tax dollars to Mr. Putin and other enemies of democracy and free media in Russia,” Lipien said. Even if the BBG managed to increase VOA Russian-language website’s reach by 100% each year for the next few years,  — a highly unlikely prospect — it would take about a decade to go from 0.2 percent to the 2007/2008 level registered before the BBG’s single program delivery platform strategy was put into place.

As many critics have feared, there is also evidence that the BBG’s marketing policies may have started  a process of promoting censorship and self-censorship at the Voice of America, which would be a violation of the VOA Charter and U.S. law. In an apparent attempt to increase ratings similar to what seemed to have encouraged airing of statements by Holocaust deniers on Alhurra and giving airtime to racist politicians on RFE/RL broadcasts, VOA Russian Service journalists were reportedly confronted with the BBG-commissioned market research analysis and told to avoid topics that are “confrontational” to the Russian audience. They were also reportedly ”berated” for their “hostile” and “in your face” blogging and urged  not to express their opinions in blogs.

“They want VOA’s Russian Service toothless,” was the conclusion of one VOA journalist who remains defiant but is afraid that the BBG will succeed in destroying VOA Russian-language programs as they did earlier with VOA Arabic broadcasts and many other VOA vernacular and English services. “That is the only way to characterize their demands,” this VOA Russian Service journalist wrote, ”because most of our materials will not be liked by [the] Kremlin and its agents (how do we know that [market research] monitors are not Kremlin’s loyal servers?). Welcome to the new era at VOA’ Russian Service!”

The VOA journalist did not want to be identified for fear of retaliation. VOA employees have no confidence in the BBG’s ability to manage international broadcasting.  In a recent government-wide survey, they rated their employer as one of the very worst among U.S. government agencies. Read FreeMediaOnline.org report Broadcasting Board of Governors Rated Worst Than Ever By Its Employees and As One of The Worst Federal Agencies

More comments from a VOA Russian Service journalist:

I am reading the program review materials [annual evaluation of a VOA program] now and can’t help laughing at some things. For instance, it states that “given the unfavorable media climate in Russia today, characterized by increasingly strict government control, VOA Russian has embarked on a project to develop a multi-media, interactive web site that will allow the Service to circumvent the problem of government pressures which have led to the loss of most of its affiliates.”

Translation: VOA and IBB [IBB -- the International Broadcasting Bureau] is a technical arm of the BBG] closed Russian radio and TV programs and put all eggs in one basket at a time when Kremlin is following China’s steps to establish full control of Internet.

All VOA’s independent evaluators “related concerns about ongoing difficulties associates with the functionality of video files (on our site). One suggested that incompatibility between site formats and available local technologies ( in Russia and other former Soviet states) might exacerbate this problem.”

Translation: VOA management is clueless about media infrastructure in countries other then the U.S. and wastes money, resources and talent without achieving the goals of U.S. international broadcasting.

U.S. report cites news media problems, lack of government accountability

Washington — Despite improvement in some areas, the Russian Federation continued a negative trajectory on human rights and government accountability, according to the State Department’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2008, released February 25. Among other problems, the legally mandated report mentions killings, torture and disappearances in areas of conflict, limited freedom of expression and restrictions placed on political opposition.

U.S. State Department (America.gov)>>

Politically motivated arrests, controls on news media and Internet common

Despite some improvements, the overall state of human rights in the former Soviet Central Asian republics remains a cause of concern, according to the U.S. Department of State’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2008, issued February 25.

U.S. State Department (America.gov)>>

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

Human Rights Watch>>

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

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

U.S. State Department>>

Posted using ShareThis