Originally posted here:
Journalists arrested at U.S. ‘School of the Americas’ protest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Sourced from: TedLipien.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe to Opinia.US

Your email:

 Sourced from: Opinia.US

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, 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, Commentary by Ted Lipien, August 18, 2009, San Francisco — Ever since the United States Information Agency (USIA) was dismantled in a foolish post-Cold War cost-cutting move, the U.S. State Department and American diplomats abroad have not been able to present a coherent message to foreign audiences quickly and effectively. The latest example is the lame U.S. public response to the terrorist attack in Ingushetia — no phone call from President Obama to President Medvedev, just a short written statement which was not easily available. There was no statement from Secretary Clinton.

Even though the lack of a proper U.S. response was not deliberate and can be blamed on the distraction with the health care reform and just plain bureaucratic incompetence, the Russian leaders and the Russian public have a reason to wonder how badly the Obama Administration wants Russia’s support in combating terrorism and restraining Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Americans, on the other hand, should be concerned how professional and how effective is America’s public diplomacy, which aims to inform and influence public opinion abroad to make it more sympathetic to U.S. interests. The ultimate aim is to make America safer by strengthening and promoting security and democracy worldwide. Yet, few within the government bureaucracy in Washington seem to grasp that ineffective public diplomacy threatens America’s safety.

Prior to 1999, a cadre of foreign service officers assigned to USIA in Washington and abroad had been responsible for crafting and coordinating U.S. responses to major international and domestic news events. Overall, they did a good job in helping to win the Cold War.

During that period USIA operated separately of the State Department but was integrated into the foreign policy establishment in Washington and at U.S. embassies abroad. USIA officers knew their foreign audiences, specialized in working with local media, and made sure that whatever message the U.S. was trying to send was presented quickly and credibly using the most modern and efficient channels of communication available at the time.

Many of these skills have now been lost. The case in point is the U.S. reaction to the latest terrorist attack in Russia that killed and wounded many innocent civilians. While the White House did issue a short statement of condolences from President Obama, the statement was not posted immediately on the White House or the State Department websites, where it would have been accessible to Russian media and individual web users. There was no official photograph or video to accompany the statement. It was not translated into Russian except in a brief news item posted with some delay on the Voice of America (VOA) Russian Service website. But after recent program cuts by the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), which manages U.S. international broadcasting, VOA’s estimated annual reach in Russia through the Internet is only about 0.2%.

VOA website is better designed and more frequently updated than the State Department websites but is still far from perfect. Another U.S.-funded broadcaster, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) has a superior Russian news website — more in terms of design than content — but it does not specialize in American news and faces other problems, such as American management’s discrimination against foreign-born journalists and intimidation of its reporters in Russia by the Kremlin’s secret police.

There was no mention Monday of the terrorist attack or the U.S. reaction to it on the official State Department Blog, the U.S. Embassy Moscow website or the Open America website created by the Embassy in Moscow to communicate with the Russian public. There was also nothing posted about this tragic incident on the Russian-language America.gov website edited in Washington by the State Department’s public diplomacy team. This website is notoriously late in posting news-related U.S. government statements and articles. Not that the web team at the White House has done a much better job as far as Russia is concerned. It took the White House 10 days to post a video from President Obama’s trip to Russia.

The video, produced in the style of early Cold War propaganda newsreels, was already overtaken by other events when it was posted ten days after President Obama’s visit, and there was no Russian translation to accompany the images. It was not posted on the U.S. Embassy Moscow website.

Evgeny Morozov, originally from Belarus, who is a fellow at the Open Society Institute in New York, has some very interesting insights about new media and public diplomacy. He wrote in Foreign Policy that “watching American diplomats embrace new media for the purposes of public diplomacy has been a very awkward experience (not as painful as watching my 82-year-old grandpa learn how to use Skype, but at times it has come pretty close). By shifting their outreach campaigns to Facebook, Twitter, and blogs, the government may be trying to do the impossible, i.e. to plant carefully worded and controlled messages on platforms that sprang up precisely to avoid the kind of influence that the State Department seeks to exert via them.”

His last point is certainly worth pondering. The U.S. Ambassador to Russia, John Beyrle, a career diplomat who speaks fluent Russian, has made good attempts to communicate directly with the Russian people through radio and television interviews, but the Kremlin controls access to those television and radio networks which enjoy the highest ratings because of their nation-wide coverage. Ambassador Beyrle also has his own blog, in which he makes use of video and his Russian-language skills. Compared to the official State Department Blog, which has little useful information and even less analysis, in addition to relying heavily on AP images — which are not in public domain — his blog is far more informative and focused.

Whether or not Evgeny Morozov is right that the benefits of the Internet for official public diplomacy are to some degree utopian, U.S. taxpayers deserve that their money used for their government’s efforts of communicating with foreign audiences be wisely spent. Even if U.S. diplomats are ill-equipped to take advantage of the new social media, they can still use the Internet to present and explain foreign policy questions.

But U.S. Embassy and State Department websites and blogs are not only poorly designed, they are also infrequently updated and rarely offer public domain photographs and other useful materials. Foreign journalists cannot rely on them for timely and objective information, in-depth analysis, and free resources, such as ready-for-posting photo images and broadcast quality video and audio.

They can also no longer rely for the same on the Voice of America. The Broadcasting Board of Governors, which was created when USIA was dismantled, eliminated VOA Russian-language radio broadcasts just 12 days before the Russian military attack on Georgia last summer. The BBG denied VOA resources to serve as a multimedia source of comprehensive information about U.S-Russian relations and American society and did not protect the VOA website from cyber attacks. During President Obama’s official visit to Moscow, the VOA website was out of commission for at least two full days.

Instead of demanding that the Russian security services stop threatening radio and TV stations using VOA news programs and that the Russian authorities should treat VOA the same way the Russian state broadcasters Radio Russia and Russia Today TV are treated in the U.S., where they are free to place their programs on cable and individual stations, the BBG responded to the secret police intimidation by eliminating on-air VOA radio and TV broadcasts. An NGO website, GovoritAmerika.us, launched in 2008, edited by volunteers and not connected with the U.S. government, offers now the only one-source access with direct links to both U.S. government and non-government U.S.-Russia-related news materials, but the website receives no public funding, which prevents it from expanding its coverage.

Even with currently available resources, the Obama Administration could have done a much better job in communicating its sympathy and support for the Russian people in the aftermath of the latest deadly terrorist attack if it had mobilized its public diplomacy team. If the Obama White House and the State Department had decided on their public diplomacy message and given a proper briefing for Vice President Biden, it might have helped him avoid making comments in the Wall Street Journal interview suggesting that Russia is a second-rate country — comments that the Russians found highly insulting, and rightly so — while at the same time the Russian leadership has taken a number of highly provocative steps, vis-a-vis the U.S. and Russia’s nearest neighbors, which suggest that their interest in President Obama’s call for a “reset” in U.S.-Russian relations is not nearly as strong as his. (Vice President Biden’s staff has been much better in updating White House website stories and posting photographs on his trips abroad than President Obama’s public affairs team, which shows the importance of foreign policy and public diplomacy experience some of them acquired while working in the U.S. Senate.)

Not all of Vice President Biden’s comments were ill-advised from the public diplomacy perspective. Robert Amsterdam, an international lawyer who represents Russian businessman Mikhail Khodorkovsky, an imprisoned political foe of Prime Minister Putin, wrote in a recent article in the Huffington Post that by “creating manageable confrontations, especially with Europe, the United States, and the former Soviet states, the Kremlin is attempting to govern outwardly, diminishing pressures for greater accountability in their domestic shortcomings, and helping to stir up nationalism and support for the regime.” Under these circumstances, communicating with the Kremlin and the Russian public requires a great deal of sophistication.

All of this calls for a quick overhaul of U.S. public diplomacy. The State Department has a new public diplomacy chief, Under Secretary Judith McHale — her predecessor, James K. Glassman, appointed by the Bush White House, terminated VOA Russian radio and TV in his previous position as the BBG chairman — but there still is no Obama Administration plan and no structure to that would help the U.S. to respond with a coherent and well-delivered message to such developments as the recent terrorist attack in Russia, the Kremlin’s threats against Georgia and Ukraine, or the Russian media’s reaction to Vice President Biden’s Wall Street Journal interview.

Concerned by these shortcomings, several members of Congress, including Senator Richard Lugar (R-Indiana), are trying to revive support and funding for professionally conducted U.S. public diplomacy. Senator Lugar introduced S. Res. 49 on February 13, 2009, expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the importance of public diplomacy. He also wrote an oped for ForeignPolicy.com on this topic. Another U.S. Senator, Sam Brownback (R-Kansas), has called for abolishing the Broadcasting Board of Governors. He introduced legislation that would establish the National Center for Strategic Communications, an agency similar to the now defunct U.S. Information Agency. Senator Patrick Leahy (D -Vermont) has tried to stop the BBG from eliminating U.S. broadcasts in foreign languages but his efforts have been ignored by most of the Board members and their executive staff. Only one BBG member, Blanquita Walsh Cullum — the only journalist serving on the Board — opposed cuts in U.S.-funded broadcasting to Russia and other media-at-risk countries.

Whether these and other calls for reforming U.S. public diplomacy and international broadcasting will be answered and result in meaningful legislative changes will depend on the cooperation from the Obama White House. New media, international broadcasting, and public diplomacy cannot solve all the problems the U.S. is facing abroad, but a little bit of expertise in these areas and good management can be very helpful. Otherwise, pro-democracy activists and authoritarian regimes will continue to wonder what the Obama Administration wants and what it can do. It would help if the Administration could agree on what that message should be and how it should be delivered.

The Russians may conveniently assume that Vice President Biden’s unfortunate comments about their country’s second-rate status were deliberate, and may think the same about the non-response in Washington to the terrorist attack in Ingushetia. But as someone who has observed the U.S. foreign policy establishment first-hand, I can say that most of it can be blamed on carelessness, incompetence, and the simple fact that most of the State Department and U.S. diplomats based abroad are on vacation in August. But in addition to that, the structural problems of U.S. public diplomacy are real and demand immediate attention from the Obama Administration and the U.S. Congress.

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

With VOA Left Voiceless, Obama Fails to Reach Russian Public

President Obama’s foreign policy thus far has been marked by an emphasis on public diplomacy. As a result, successfully engaging foreign publics has become a top priority of his administration. The President himself has taken an active role in this effort, delivering several high-profile speeches to audiences around the world. His July 7th oration in Moscow, which focused on the importance of media freedom and human rights, was one such occasion.

But Obama’s message failed to reach his intended audience- the Russian public. On Russian television, which is tightly controlled by the Kremlin, Obama’s remarks were largely ignored, receiving hardly any air-time.

To make matters worse, a crippling cyber-attack had rendered the international websites of Voice of America (VOA) useless. As a result, VOA, the federally-funded broadcast service congressionally mandated to provide objective, accurate news to foreign audiences, was utterly incapable of offering the Russian public unbiased coverage of the President’s speech. VOA’s loss of web-based capabilities might have been less damaging if not for the fact that its oversight, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, decided in 2008 to completely do away with VOA’s Russian language radio and television broadcasts into the country.

VOA has demonstrated its ability to circumvent anti-American state-media and deliver objective news programming, most notably in Iran following the June 12th election. However, the internet-only approach in Russia, and the inability to provide sufficient security for this service, allowed Kremlin-controlled media to undermine Obama’s attempt to connect with the Russian public. Unless the Obama Administration takes the necessary steps to ensure the vitality of VOA and similar programs, our nation’s outreach to foreign publics will continue to be rebuffed by unreceptive governments.
>

Highlights from the President’s Trip to Russia

Posted by Katherine Brandon

Get a behind-the-scenes look at the highlights of the President’s trip to Moscow earlier this month. See images of his trip, and listen to the President speak at the New Economic School. You can read the whole speech here.

END OF WHITE HOUSE MATERIAL

White House Video From Russia Released 10 Days Late, Without Russian Translation, And A Message Overtaken By Events

Pro-democracy intellectuals in Russia and political leaders from the former Soviet block countries, who had lived under communism and were exposed to communist propaganda, would probably see the White House video as dangerously naive.

FreeMediaOnline.org, Free Media Online Blog, GovoritAmerika.us, Commentary by Ted Lipien, July 17, 2009, San Francisco — The White House posted on its website today carefully produced video highlights from the President’s visit to Russia, exactly ten days after Barack Obama delivered a major speech on the future of U.S.-Russian relations. The address to the graduates of the New Economic School, which Natalia Bubnova, a public affairs specialist at the Carnegie Center in Moscow, described as a “silent speech,” was not carried live by the Kremlin-controlled national television networks and received relatively little media coverage in Russia, where journalists are increasingly threatened by the Kremlin’s secret police and the local mafia of business and government leaders. Many Russian journalists have been murdered by unknown assailants, and the few remaining semi-independent media outlets practice self-censorship to protect themselves from official reprisals.

But if the White House video was designed to inform and inspire the Russian public about the President’s commitment to a new start in U.S.-Russian relations, it was not only released ten days too late to be of any news value to journalists and media consumers. It also came without a Russian translation, and its overly optimistic message presented in the style of old Soviet era propaganda films would have been inappropriate for the skeptical Russian audience. Barack Obama would have done much better in communicating his message of change to the Russian people if the White House handlers had arranged during his visit for a series of extensive live interviews with audience participation on national TV networks in Russia and had insisted that his speech also be carried live on the same television channels, which are controlled by the Kremlin. When it comes to overcoming media control in Russia, some of the Cold War diplomatic tactics are still needed.

The limited media outreach during the Moscow visit was in sharp contrast with the White House public relations effort to publicize the President’s earlier speech in Cairo, Egypt, in which Barack Obama called for a new beginning in America’s relationship with Muslim communities around the world. The Cairo speech was released by the White House in Arabic and other foreign languages, both in text and in video, as soon as it was delivered. The media blitz after the Cairo speech seems to have been, however, a one-time effort, which the Obama Administration seems not capable of sustaining due to a severe shortage of experienced public diplomacy and media specialists.

Other than the lack of proper structures and resources, the public diplomacy experts at the White House and the State Department also seem to have some difficulty realizing that their focus should be on providing timely and objective information in foreign languages to local media outlets and media consumers rather than taking full ten days to produce a short upbeat video, as the one released today, that looks and sounds much more like a government-generated propaganda film of World War II and Cold War vintage. Had the video been released immediately after the speech, Russian journalists may have been able at least to take advantage of its outstanding visual composition and provide an appropriate text and translation. Ten days later, in its English-language version, it is largely unusable. Its release now is also counterproductive, as its core message has been overtaken by recent events in Russia and the region.

Normally, the Voice of America (VOA), the U.S. government-funded international broadcaster, would have carried live a major presidential speech in Moscow and provided a Russian translation. VOA would have also offered live commentaries by independent U.S. experts. These would be broadcast on satellite radio and television from VOA studios in Washington, D.C. Some of the programs might have also been replayed live or broadcast later on those stations in Russia that would still be willing to defy the Russian secret police and maintain an affiliate relationship with VOA. The VOA Russian broadcast would have also been transmitted on short-wave radio frequencies, which cover great distances and are not as easy to jam as a single website, although they attract a very limited number of listeners unless there is a major crisis and a government blockade or heavy censorship of all other media.

Unfortunately, the Federal agency in charge of the Voice of America, the bipartisan Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), terminated in 2008 all live VOA Russian-language radio and television programs, both high-tech satellite and low-tech short-wave, just 12 days before Russia’s sudden military attack on the Republic of Georgia over a territorial dispute. Since then, the BBG has refused urgent pleas from VOA journalists to resume these broadcasts as a response to the last summer’s Russian-Georgian war and the still deteriorating human rights and media situation in Russia.

The Voice of America Russian Service was left only with a poorly-designed and unprotected website and a 30 minute Monday through Friday pre-recorded radio segment on a weak AM station in Moscow, which was restored only after protests from media freedom advocates over a period of many months. To make things much worse, during Barack Obama’s historic first presidential visit to Russia, the Voice of America website went blank for at least two full days as a result of a suspected North Korean cyber attack. The website was back online after President Obama left Russia, but even then the audio program on the web was not updated for over a week. The BBG/VOA web team was not aware of the problem for several days. Instead of a recording of President Obama’s speech with a Russian translation, visitors to the VOA website were offered a week-old audio newscast. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), another U.S. taxpayer-funded international broadcaster also managed by the BBG, did cover the Obama visit, but RFE/RL is based in Prague, the Czech Republic, and in Moscow, and its Russian speaking reporters do not specialize in analyzing U.S. foreign policy from an American perspective. RFE/RL reporters based in Russia are also vulnerable to threats from the Russian secret police.

Even if the Voice of America website were available during President Obama’s visit to Russia, it would not have included full texts in Russian, video, and audio of all the presidential speeches delivered in Moscow. BBG officials responsible for terminating live VOA Russian radio and TV programs had also directed the Russian Service to focus their energies on producing short and entertaining news stories for the web in order to drive more visitors to the VOA website.

English and Russian texts of most of President Obama’s speeches in Moscow — but not audio or video files — were posted rather quickly on the State Department’s news and information website, America.gov, and on the website of the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. Summaries of President Obama’s speeches and links to full texts were also available on GovoritAmerika.us, a Russian-language news analysis website created by volunteers associated with the San Francisco-based media freedom nonprofit FreeMediaOnline.org. Some of them are former VOA journalists who are concerned about media censorship in Russia and the restrictions imposed by the BBG on the Voice of America Russian broadcasts.

One of the drawbacks of waiting ten days to produce a video from a presidential trip is that new events can quickly overtake the video’s message. The same is true for producing a video that is much more oriented toward promoting a particular propaganda theme rather than offering factual information in a timely manner.

The White House video was heavily focused on hailing a new beginning in the bilateral relationship between Washington and Moscow and making a clean break with the Cold War models. Unfortunately for the public relations specialists who produced it, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev directly challenged their theme and President Obama when he visited South Ossetia earlier this week and said that Moscow would continue to back the breakaway Georgian region, which Russia recognized as independent despite strong objections from the United States and most other nations. Then, as a further sign that the situation in Russia was not moving in the direction desired by the Obama Administration, a respected human rights activist, Natalya Estemirova, was abducted and brutally murdered in Chechnya. Both the U.S. State Department spokesman and the U.S. Ambassador to Russia, John Beyrle, have condemned the murder. The White House has also condemned the killing, calling it “especially shocking” that it happened a week after President Barack Obama met with activists, including those from the human rights group Memorial, of which Ms. Estemirova was a member.

Because of these events in Russia, this may have not been the best time to release the already much outdated video. Also, a group of pro-American intellectuals and political leaders from former Central and East European countries, including former Polish president Lech Walesa and former Czech president Waclav Havel, has just published an open letter to the Obama Administration, warning President Obama of Russia’s return to what they call a “revisionist power pursuing a 19th century agenda with 21st century tactics.” The letter refers to “nervousness in our capitals” over energy blockades, media manipulation and other methods Russia has used to undermine the region’s ties with Western Europe and the United States.

The White House media team may deserve some credit for much more timely postings of official photographs, texts of presidential speeches and at least some videos during President Obama’s first visit to Moscow. After his initial meeting in London with President Medvedev in April 2009, the official photograph of the two presidents was not made available on the White House website for several days. The website was only infrequently updated during the entire U.S. presidential trip to Europe last April.

President Obama has a highly talented team of photographers and web designers lead by Pete Souza, but his public affairs and public diplomacy advisors seem to be lacking critical journalistic skills and are suffering from what could only be described as too much of a hero worship to be able to produce timely and credible materials for the media and news consumers. (They even put “hero” as part of the name for web images with President Obama, which anybody visiting the White House website can see by right-clicking on these photos in order to download and save them.)

These White House advisors, if they are indeed advising the president, clearly lack the journalistic, public diplomacy and foreign policy experience to find the right balance in describing and presenting his message to Russia and the rest of the world. They are, unfortunately, repeating the mistakes of the Bush White House by confusing U.S. domestic political campaign advertising with public diplomacy abroad. Pro-democracy intellectuals in Russia and political leaders from the former Soviet block countries, who had lived under communism and were exposed to communist propaganda, would probably see the White House video as dangerously naive.

Perhaps then, it’s not so bad after all that the video with the highlights of President Obama’s trip to Russia was released several days too late and without foreign language captions. Hopefully for the Obama Administration, it will not receive much publicity in the region formerly dominated by the Soviet Union and still feeling threatened by Russia’s autocratic leaders. If it does, it will only contribute to the nervousness about the U.S. policy and intentions.

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). The book, which describes Pope John Paul II’s views on feminism, also includes evidence of the importance of Western radio broadcasts during Karol Wojtyla’s life in communist-ruled Poland and in the first ten years of his papacy. The book also has references to the efforts of the KGB and other communist intelligence services to place spies in the Vatican and to influence reporting by journalists covering the Polish pope.

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.

Прочитайте речь на русском языке.

ГоворитАмерика.us Всесторонний Анализ Новостей из США – Link to GovoritAmerika.us Home

View Photos in Full Screen

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

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.

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.

 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.

Dmitry Medvedev

Barack Obama

  FreeMediaOnline.org & Free Media Online Blog,  GovoritAmerika.us, April 1, 2009, San Francisco –  According to a senior U.S. Administration official, the violent attack against Lev Ponomarev, a leading Russian human rights activist, was raised during Wednesday’s meeting in London between President Obama and Russia’s President Dmitry Medvedev.

Lev Ponomarev

“I’m sure many of you have read, Lev Ponomarev was badly beaten in Moscow yesterday. He is a leading human rights activist in — first in the Soviet Union with Andrei Sakharov and all through — that came up in a very productive, positive exchange about what had happened to him, and a concern expressed on both sides,” said a senior U.S. Administration official in a background briefing for reporters in London.

Earlier, nine human rights organizations have called on the Russian authorities to investigate the attack against the prominent human rights defender. 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.

Russia is also one of the least safe countries in the world for journalists. The Committee to Protect Journalists said in a recently released report, “Getting Away With Murder 2009“ that President Dmitry Medvedev failed to deliver on his promise that attacks against journalists would be investigated and prosecuted. The CPJ charges that the Russian 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.”

The most recent victim of violence against journalists is Sergey Protazanov, a reporter for Grajdanskoye Soglasye, a local newspaper based in the north Moscow suburb of Khimki. The Reporters Without Borders NGO reported that he died at his home on 30 March, two days after being attacked and beaten. He had been covering irregularities in the 1 March local elections in which Khimki mayor Victor Strelchenko was reelected.

Human rights violations have been a low priority in U.S.-Russian relations in recent years and, in the opinion of most experts, are not likely to take precedence for the Obama Administration over such issues as nuclear proliferation, Iran, or the war on terror.  But according to Ted Lipien, president of FreeMediaOnline.org, a San Francisco-based media freedom nonprofit, the raising of the Ponomarev case during the Obama-Medvedev meeting may  signal a subtle change in emphasis.

BBG

The lack of concern for the human rights situation and the safety of journalists in Russia became especially glaring during the last months of the Bush Administration in controversial actions of the bipartisan Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), which oversees U.S. broadcasts to Russia and other countries. The BBG took Voice of America (VOA) Russian-language radio programs off the air last summer just 12 days before the Russian military incursion into Georgia.  The BBG’s action resulted in a major reduction in human rights reporting by the Voice of America in Russia and, combined with the Kremlin’s own media restrictions, produced an estimated 98% drop in annual audience reach for VOA (from 7.3% in 2007 to est. 0.2% in 2009).

FreeMediaOnline.org has launched a volunteer-run Russian-language website, GovoritAmerica.us, to compensate for the BBG’s restrictions on VOA broadcasting.

The BBG has also been accused of exposing Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) journalists in Russia to intimidation and blackmail by the Kremlin’s security services and of denying their foreign-based journalists basic protections of U.S. labor law. In addition to VOA, whose journalists are Federal employees, the BBG oversees RFE/RL, which is based primarily in Prague and Moscow, and other privatized broadcasting entities such as Alhurra Television for the Middle East. BBG-managed Alhurra has been criticized for poor journalism, broadcasting statements by Holocaust deniers, and financial irregularities. A Russian human rights organization has criticized RFE/RL for giving extensive airtime to a Russian politician known for his racist views.

Hillary Clinton

Former Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty journalists are suing the U.S. taxpayer-funded broadcaster in the Czech and European courts over its labor practices. One of the journalists requested the Czech Constitutional Court to question Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is an ex officio member of the BBG. She enjoys diplomatic immunity and is not expected to respond.

Later this week, she and President Obama will be visiting the Czech Republic, where the local media has reported on this story as an example of a double standard in American human rights policies. The controversy also drew a comment from former Czech President and human rights defender Vaclav Havel. The case could prove embarrassing to U.S. officials during President Obama’s visit.

FreeMediaOnline.org’s Ted Lipien said that “the BBG’s actions, which been disastrous for journalists’ rights overseas, have caused its own journalists and other employees to rate it in a government-wide Office of Personnel Management survey as the worst-run Federal agency.” He called on the Obama Administration to “move quickly to restore the human rights focus at the BBG and to make the agency accountable to the American taxpayers who don’t want their money to be used to give credence to Holocaust deniers and contribute to racial violence in Russia.”

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.

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>>

 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>>

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