Radio Silence
Judging from my inbox, there is a great deal of concern over the cuts for Voice of America Uzbek service and Radio Liberty Kazakh service in the president’s proposed FY 2008 budget. Today’s Washington Post carries an editorial arguing against cutting programming to former Soviet states.
Voice of America’s half-hour of radio and half-hour of television programming in Uzbek, says a VOA staff member, provide about the only direct contact Uzbeks have with the United States and the only unvarnished news in the region.
…
Mr. Bush should be eager to encourage democratic forces in Ukraine, as well as in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, not further limit their sources of information about the United States. The price of such programs is so low that federal financial constraints are hardly an excuse to kill them; a relatively tiny increase in the VOA’s budget would make a world of difference.
They are certainly correct about these being cheap. Were we to eliminate farm subsidies to a certain presidential candidate’s home state, we could add more than 50% to the Broadcasting Board of Governors’ budget request.*
FreeMediaOnline has published a couple articles about this story. Their latest has some interesting information about how the BBG has dropped the ball on helping their broadcasts find an audience in former Soviet states.
A former VOA official told FreeMediaOnline.org that the White House and the BBG have been outsmarted by the ex-KGB spy President Putin and former communists who had became authoritarian rulers in Central Asia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. These rulers forced local stations to stop their cooperation with VOA and RFE/RL. The BBG then used research data showing dropping audience figures for VOA and RFE/RL in these countries to justify its decisions to cut programs rather than try to help these services reach their audience through improved program delivery and innovative use of the Internet.
The same story also gives some reason to hope that the administration will not get what it wants. The BBG stopped VOA broadcasts to Uzbekistan in 2004. It unfortunately took nearly a year, but Congress forced them to start back up in 2005. Perhaps this time around, someone like Chris Smith (R-NJ), whose Central Asia Democracy and Human Rights Act of 2006 included a section on funding for VOA and RFE/RL broadcasting to the region. (See text of legislation.)
Media in Kazakhstan are worried about US funding cuts. In a February 14 press conference, the US ambassador to Kazakhstan, John Ordway, was involved in the following exchange.
Press: Is the United States going to reduce funding for independent mass media, which are not under state control, or it will stay at the same level? And will reduction (if any) mean that the United Sates will terminate its activity in the area of human rights and democratic processes?
Ambassador Ordway: Our assistance programs in Central Asia in general are going to over the next few years have fewer financial resources. This has to do with a more difficult budget environment in Washington and very tough competition among a lot of high priority claimants on our foreign assistance resources, including Central Asia, which is a priority.
Each year we look at what we have available from Congress, and then we have to decide how we’re going to spread that around. The development of democratic institutions in civil society, including free competitive media, is and will remain an important goal, and we will have some resources to pursue those aims. There is no political message nor any intention on our part to diminish the priority we place in this area in the budget decisions that have to be made in a very difficult financial climate.
That is a great shift of blame to Congress, but the fact of the matter is that President Bush is taking the initiative by proposing lower funding to Central Asia assistance programs. It is very difficult to credibly claim that the US considers Central Asia a priority when funding gets cut. Protest all we want, cuts will be interpreted as having a message.
“It makes us think that the White House is disappointed with the situation in former USSR countries, realized that their mechanisms of influencing the processes do not work, and decided to just forget about it. The direction now shifted from developing the positive issues – reforms, human rights, etc., to trying to stop the negative ones – drug trafficking, radicalism, extremism”, says Zhovtis.
This stuff is chump change in the federal budget. It does more harm than good to cut it, and one hopes that Congress will show a little better ability to make half-hearted, ad hoc Central Asia policy than the administration.
*Based on 2005 subsidies to Colorado.
Stumble it! |
Tags: Central Asia, US, Policy.
Posted by Nathan on February 16th, 2007
Permalink | Trackback | Comments: 19
Comments
Time: 2/19/2007, 11:29 am
Yet another sign that transition is well and truly over. Thomas Carrothers idea about the end of transition/backlash against democracy in action. I suppose this can be read as another example of the tacit acknowledgement of long term policy failure. Hey, just maybe , liberal democracy (ie US unipolarism) isn’t such a universal aspiration..?
Welcome back history! Its now the Post-Transition era!
Time: 2/19/2007, 11:38 am
I don’t see how this says the slightest thing about aspirations for democracy. I also don’t buy in the least the conflation of liberal democracy with unipolarity. Both propositions are pretty damned shaky and oversimplistic. (Whatever backlash there is is best explained as an elite backlash and not a popular one.)
It does say though that the Bush administration doesn’t put much priority on Central Asia policy.
Time: 2/19/2007, 12:20 pm
U.S. international broadcasting will continue to Uzbekistan and Russia on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) with four hours of daily programming. Most of our broadcasting to Uzbekistan is on
RFE/RL NOT VOA and 4 out of 5 Uzbeks who listen to our broadcasts do so on RFE/RL. VOA television will continue in Russia as will radio on RFE/RL. We regret cutting any broadcasts to to bedget limitations but it is misleading to suggest we will not be broadcasting to these coujntries.
Larry Hart, Communication Corridnator, Broadcasting Board of Governors
Time: 2/19/2007, 12:52 pm
Larry, thanks for that information on the breakdown in broadcasting to Uzbekistan. I did not mean to imply that there would be no broadcasts to Uzbekistan or Kazakhstan at all, but perhaps I was clearer in my earlier post.
Time: 2/20/2007, 3:59 pm
Nathan,
Re: your comment “Whatever backlash there is is best explained as an elite backlash and not a popular one.”
I strongly disagree. I think anti-Americanism across the region is wide, deep and popular. While some of it is historical, I wouldn’t underestimate the influence of Russian soft power in region. This takes the form of TV broadcasts, and builds on widespread desire to earn money as a “gastarbeiter” in Russia /Kazakhstan. Witness for example, the rise in popularity in Russian language education across the region.
Oh, not to mention nostalgia for the USSR, even among 20 -somethings. This isn’t a throwback phenomenon necessarily. It probably has as much to do with Iraq, Afganista, Hugo Chavez and Putin as it does the USSR.
I reiterate - this is now the Post-Transition era, regardless of cuts of support for RFE, VOA etc.
Time: 2/20/2007, 7:16 pm
I agree there is anti-Americanism, but in my experience, it is fairly mild — nowhere near strong enough that I’d characterize it a “backlash” against the United States or the general concepts of liberalism or democracy (though the words may carry negative connotations in the minds of many).
Time: 2/20/2007, 11:53 pm
Mr. Hart, this is another sign of your office’s short-sightedness. Instead of having a 4-hour RFE/RL programming it is much smarter to have 2 hour VOA and 2 hour RFE/RL programming simply because VOA Uzbek offers a different perspective, more US perspective and RFE/RL repeat most of their programming instead of delivering original materials. I do not know how much you speak or understand Uzbek, but I am a native-speaker and I can tell you that the reason why most people listen to RFE/RL (although I have a slightly different information about the rating) is not because of the quality, but because BBG did not carry a wise-policy - first it closed VOA Uzbek and then reopened it following the Andijan massacre - the station lost its audience and it needed time to win it back. Besides as far as I know, BBG did nothing to market and promote VOA Uzbek!
VOA Uzbek, not RFE/RL has been the only medium representing the voice of Washington to Uzbekistan, the only bridge connecting Uzbeks to Americans and now this bridge is being destroyed. In addition to the shut down of many American companies and organizations by the Uzbek government, VOA is being shut down by the American government and you are doing a great favor to Mr. Karimov. May be this is a small price for restoring US-Uzbek relations, although I am not a big fan of the conspiracy theory.
Time: 2/21/2007, 7:38 am
I think RFE/RL and VOA should complement each other. I don’t think they copy each other. They have different approaches. I believe in alternative source of information. I can’t imagine Americans having only New York Times or WP. Variety is always good.
Time: 2/22/2007, 3:13 pm
I’d like to see some real numbers on actual listeners to either VOA or RFE/RL in Uzbekistan. I never met anyone who listened to either service, at least while teaching in Tashkent. Russian media were far more widely received. The model used by BBG–Cold War–is not appropriate for the current period. Rather, they might consider using the model the BBC (BBC World Service funded by the British Foreign Office) uses to broadcast in America–utilizing the government networks: PBS & NPR. That would mean using Uzbek government networks in Uzbek and Russian to produce and distribute programming about America or in America’s interest, rather than attempting to maintain a separate–and necessarily oppositional system. The USG could fund Uzbek “Nova,” “Masterpiece Theatre,” “Frontline” or “Newshour” as well as provide segments to Uzbek radio for “All Things Considered” and “Morning Edition” -type shows… But I doubt anyone at BBG has the inclination to try anything new, or anything that might actually reach listeners or viewers with pro-American material.
Time: 2/22/2007, 3:20 pm
They have distributed content through more accessible means, including local television networks. It’s tough to keep doing it when the government absolutely refuses to cooperate though.
Time: 2/23/2007, 5:34 am
I think they’d cooperate if the programs were cultural, scientific, or general interest–not if they were anti-govenment propaganda. There was some sort of “Let’s learn English” TV show when I was there featuring students sponsored by the US. I don’t think it had a problem. Something like Turner Movie Classics or Live from Lincoln Center might be a good start. The problem is that the USG is tied to Cold War programs, policies, personnel, and thinking–plus apparently supports ERK through RFE/RL. It would be like the BBC World Service broadcasting Noam Chomsky on US politics–I don’t think we’d like that, either…
Time: 2/23/2007, 1:35 pm
Actually, Chomsky’s been on the BBC plenty of times. I’m sure he’s even shown up on their broadcasts in the US. Apparently it doesn’t bother anyone hear enough to try to block their signal. Then again, we don’t set the propaganda bar so low.
This isn’t the BBG’s fault. VOA does plenty of apolitical broadcasting. The Uzbek government is the party that actively tries to block access. It’s not as if they’re victims or anything. They just don’t want people to have access to information. (And though I’m far from fluent in Uzbek, none of this strikes me as anything but plain old news.)
Time: 2/23/2007, 3:25 pm
We complete block the BBC signal Nathan. It is against the law for foreigners to own American broadcasters. Period. The BBC programs are broadcast on American government supported networks, via cable or internet, or shortwave–not on TV, AM or FM bands. We protect American airwaves–even against the British…Rupert Murdoch had to become an American citizen in order to buy his television stations, for example. I’m sure the VOA had some good shows, but I still have not seen any accurate listener information. If no one was listening–what is the point, exactly? My argument is that if the US did in the former USSR what the BBC does in the USA, there would be more listenership and viewership–especially for high culture programs, which I believe would still be respected both in Moscow and Tashkent. People were very sad when Yo-Yo Ma cancelled his concert at the Tashkent music festival, for example.
Time: 2/23/2007, 3:39 pm
I’ll add that from what I’ve seen on the internet, if I had to choose between cutting VOA or RFE/RL Uzbek Service, I’d eliminate RFE/RL first, because RFE/RL seems more political and less pro-American than VOA…
Time: 2/23/2007, 3:44 pm
BTW, Re Chomsky–I’d be willing to bet that he’s not featured on the BBC’s American retransmitted programs on PBS or NPR as frequently as he appears on TV or radio in the UK…Maybe one of our BBC “lurkers” can settle this?
Time: 2/23/2007, 3:47 pm
BTW, one more question–has either VOA or RFE/RL ever interviewed you for a program? If so, when? If not, why not? It would seem to be a “no brainer” to highlight a young American interested in news from Central Asia who built up a website like yours. It’s prime feature story material. Unless BBG news judgement has been clouded by politics–or incompetence, or both…
Time: 2/23/2007, 4:01 pm
Nope, neither has interviewed me. The only folks who ever do are bloggers. I have been in touch with people from both services, though.
We do the exact same thing that the BBC does. Perhaps Larry Hart can drop by again and clear up whether or not VOA Uzbek TV programming still goes out on Uzbek television networks. But unless I am mistaken, the government quit cooperating on radio broadcasting. I am fairly confident that we broadcasted content on local radio stations.
I agree that cultural content is important, but the Uzbek government treats anything and everything we do as poisonous. I cannot see them agreeing to any US broadcasts.
As far as listenership goes, no one really knows what it is. BBG says RFE/RL is far more popular in Uzbekistan. Plenty of the coverage on the funding cut has people saying that VOA still should not be cut because it is a different kind of programming and because the information it reports gets passed on from listeners to nonlisteners.
I highly recommend reading the WaPo story that came out today. Fun fact about the cuts (not just VOA Uzbek, but all of them)? Only $22 million. Chump change in the federal budget.
Time: 2/24/2007, 8:28 am
Well, I’d say you and Registan might be able do more with $22 million to help the US in Central Asian that RFE/RL or VOA. I think you get more hits than they have listeners–plus the Uzbeks don’t block Registan (so far)…
Time: 2/17/2007, 12:31 am
You know, given the current incumbency rate of around 99% or so, you’d think Congress would be particularly immune to electoral concerns than the executive, and would therefore craft longer-term policies. But it isn’t, and it doesn’t.